Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK (#3047)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728F912083D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:04:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PwYXFe79Q2QO for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B981200F5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-275fa97.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-275fa97.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.64]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B8B520D04 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:04:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1574175853; bh=yeOhUkzIHqd3Z9Iy7xmKeQomFCiWOcbmTIOG7X7ggKI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wYlrKHuWd15MXeFXZ7F1qdSamVsOMpa+A0tAaQg5sYhIGHP4FzniUPhzPNrNhQbzl +0tl+E0uWpzZppPdwmmEPgDQKrb58MgioBLIyiasuP7LxHDmM+nDHCllc0mrUFldNs CCs1WsbrZEPCOszc2fYlUYW292NTQEcuCb+IFxVg=
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:04:13 -0800
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZMHN6LCPUKIOOQUXN34E3O3EVBNHHB2737AM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047/review/319105244@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK (#3047)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd4046d47f31_45923ff07b2cd96c2184f2"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/i8H1n1CzWdpfADSZSUKtq07nFYU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:04:16 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1031,9 +1031,8 @@ OnAckReceived(ack, pn_space):
     OnPacketAcked(acked_packet.packet_number, pn_space)
 
   DetectLostPackets(pn_space)

I want to keep when to send(congestion control) and loss detection separate.  Stating that you always send one packet in this pseudocode commingles the two.

Also, we have no normative text that indicates sending a packet after receiving an ACK is the right thing to do here, so putting it in the pseudocode would make the pseudocode out of sync with the text.  If you think we should allow sending a packet because TCP does, then the right thing to do is file an issue and then write a PR that updates the text and the pseudocode.

-- 
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/3047#discussion_r347976726