Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST NOT bundle, etc. (#3853)

[ekr <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM ianswett <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It's not really the bundling that's the issue, but the idea that one
> shouldn't send extra ack-eliciting frames when sending an ack.
>
> This isn't shorter, but how about:
> "A receiver MUST NOT generate and bundle an ack-eliciting frame with
> packets that would
> otherwise be non-ack-eliciting, to avoid an infinite feedback loop of
> acknowledgements."
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>
>
I feel like this has the same problem as before.

I would suggest that part of the issue here is that we are trying to make
something really crisp. Looking at the rest of the graf, where we
actually endorse this practice, I suggest we do:

  A receiver that sends only non-ack-eliciting packets, such as ACK frames,
might
  not receive an acknowledgement for a long period of time.  This could
cause the
  receiver to maintain state for a large number of ACK frames for a long
period of
  time, and ACK frames it sends could be unnecessarily large.  In such a
case, a
  receiver could bundle a PING or other small ack-eliciting frame to elicit
an ACK from the peer. Caution: If receivers add
  additional ack-eliciting frames to every ACK, this would create
  an infinite feedback loop of acknowledgements. Therefore, receivers SHOULD
  only do this occasionally, such as once per round trip.


-- 
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/issues/3853#issuecomment-655760231