Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST ACK each ack-eliciting packet once (#3092)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 22 October 2019 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D99120ADC for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 yESMFnrqlMV4 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C86AA120AD8 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173DD6604D5 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571709458; bh=B6NzKiM9h0yxRXty+9ne7NAQDFJgmKYtwW5SpH5ayMw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BJ0HT7B9Nu/Db8MG05lhAxdxVIVik6C89hq+dKjQY+cGAlNnS5Aq/BMSgogCHDTZX 5u0uQKvqb45Cl2YbQu4bDo7PYAyTIQcDlkGvPTCwG4iM/KTmN3h0jQCnLM2vRWA7ki St33Y0rm5Ubt2fw2SMCLQVbgxAb1BzuoVLJeLaSU=
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:57:38 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3092/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST ACK each ack-eliciting packet once (#3092)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dae62127ba6_2b713fddce4cd95c892e8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 01:57:41 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3013,18 +3013,21 @@ guidance offered below seeks to strike this balance.
 An ACK frame SHOULD be generated for at least every second ack-eliciting packet.
 This recommendation is in keeping with standard practice for TCP {{?RFC5681}}.
+Every ack-eliciting packet MUST be acknowledged in at least one transmitted
+ACK frame, and SHOULD typically be acknowledged in more than one ACK frame.

To Mikkel's comment, could we say that *every* packet SHOULD be acknowledged at least once, and that ack-eliciting packets MUST be acknowledged within the maximum ack delay.  ?

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