Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, @kazuho, for raising a point that I had completely forgotten! I remember now why I had not wanted ACK loss to drive the congestion controller. I think @kazuho and @ianswett are saying similar things, but the short of it is this: the congestion controller assumes that cwnd amount of data is in flight when it reacts to loss, reducing the cwnd. However, the cwnd has nothing to do with the amount of ACKs that are in flight, and as a result, the reduction of the cwnd in response makes no sense in this case.

(It does make an increasing amount of sense to use as the traffic in this direction is increasingly dominated by ack-eliciting data, but that also makes it increasingly likely that a congestive loss will be of an ack-eliciting packet.)

We should not change the design here. I'm fine with @ianswett's proposed addition, but I don't think we should use the loss of ACKs as a congestion signal that affects the congestion window.

-- 
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/3451#issuecomment-585478025