Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Only send one immediate ACK (#3361)

ianswett <> Sat, 18 January 2020 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B7912003F for <>; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:38:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ab-U7tBybRCX for <>; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFA7E120020 for <>; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:38:21 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579354701; bh=2yWSuQVeESAqf5c+W/FJGBrbaafCfAUn+XlFKRYElrQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KHUQgYvuLfr9sVv0lSRRAb5MI9rhr/OQk5+0uMZd8t40NwUtA1jtpbtMMOWgnTia5 W+NFSyB37bKfQ0kJNqpRWrpHJLnlnLuRsUIbo61sKf7zQ7Ls/vqXM+JwUWBZwgLaqh 9qsp5V13KKRAjUhVUB9kE/h6+4dm7LUvRCXe0KC4=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3361/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Only send one immediate ACK (#3361)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e230a4d5f13f_618e3fba10ccd9685468ba"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:38:24 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3136,12 +3136,10 @@ This recommendation is in keeping with standard practice for TCP {{?RFC5681}}.
 In order to assist loss detection at the sender, an endpoint SHOULD send an ACK
 frame immediately on receiving an ack-eliciting packet that is out of order. The
-endpoint MAY continue sending ACK frames immediately on each subsequently
-received packet, but the endpoint SHOULD return to acknowledging every other
-packet within a period of 1/8 x RTT, unless more ack-eliciting packets are
-received out of order.  If every subsequent ack-eliciting packet arrives out of
-order, then an ACK frame SHOULD be sent immediately for every received
-ack-eliciting packet.
+endpoint SHOULD not continue sending ACK frames immediately unless more

Thanks, done!

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: