Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What if an ACK frame doesn't fit in a packet (#3312)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

janaiyengar approved this pull request.

A few suggestions

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame

```suggestion
spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  The ACK frame is expected
```

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame
+will be much smaller than a QUIC packet.  However, if the entire ACK frame

```suggestion
to fit within a single QUIC packet.  If it does not, then older ranges
```

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame
+will be much smaller than a QUIC packet.  However, if the entire ACK frame
+does not fit into a single QUIC packet, older ranges (that is, those with the

```suggestion
(those with the smallest packet numbers) are omitted.
```

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame
+will be much smaller than a QUIC packet.  However, if the entire ACK frame
+does not fit into a single QUIC packet, older ranges (that is, those with the
+smallest packet numbers) SHOULD be omitted.

```suggestion
```

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312#pullrequestreview-339487828