Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send an immediate ACK (#2025)

Jana Iyengar <> Tue, 29 January 2019 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BA6130F00 for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:37:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 lwEKbSS3Limw for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 304BD130F01 for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:33:42 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1548729222; bh=iIXDlt32iFzN8du0MJJWt+SRHds+loL6gy9AJddKeCg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vsmBqdlj7zHtYl+DWWQk3a7Hb6Ah+1XLokXwz1GjKvXAlzhnlchG3jfGfnMhP64Mu tUIMiE3xoHzflZJCF5vmgdr6usAtVTBsDD7Idnt4MDFJopyCbDzMPE3dlofgagYWDF rY6UQ5mptnFgXbR+rQIQNtfRZEntTnGKyMsYmdPY=
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2025/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send an immediate ACK (#2025)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c4fbb867fd4b_1e963f91f80d45c02255fe"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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, 29 Jan 2019 02:37:51 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

 Out-of-order packets SHOULD be acknowledged more quickly, in order to accelerate
 loss recovery.  The receiver SHOULD send an immediate ACK when it receives a new
-packet which is not one greater than the largest received packet number.
+packet which is not the next expected one. That is, its packet number is not one
+greater than the largest received packet number.  A receiver MAY immediately
+acknowledge subsequent ack-eliciting packets after first receiving a packet out
+of order. A receiver SHOULD NOT send an immediate ACK any time there is a gap
+in the ACK frame being sent, because that will cause it to send an ACK in
+response to every packet for at least an RTT after a single packet loss.

I don't understand what the text here is trying to say.  I'll suggest rewording for text "A receiver MAY ... single packet loss", see if this matches what you're getting at.

"A receiver MAY send acknowledgements immediately for the next few packets that are received, but the receiver SHOULD revert back to delaying acknowledgements after sending a few immediate acknowledgements."

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