Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] editorial: This sentence was hard to parse for me (recovery) (#3383)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 23 January 2020 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8FA1208C6 for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 07:57:48 -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 8dIPVkYMQqd3 for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 07:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61E451208AC for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 07:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B66A6A0C30 for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 07:57:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579795066; bh=hyqRu+pSmENapUJz8/xOkbZBgPZ05BVHQzxFtwjWw/c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=nU3vLC8hHLlHyVe89lpl41JDll1o3wIy5u9k+hZ89CxhI9QUuX1krkYC24SJTSvgX hNBmfI9ZY7dpTo6l3aQ8A9UfqWCVrsSNjQChRjfQZj7X3jT9JIRoqCUGi6b5yIvtqa zvLSTPgP9rakN8ggdfi4/oawMi/M4xOkr9tWBSCc=
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 07:57:46 -0800
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3383/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] editorial: This sentence was hard to parse for me (recovery) (#3383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e29c27a16394_55d3fd8ac0cd96464730"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:57:49 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

> @@ -272,9 +272,10 @@ SHOULD NOT be used to update RTT estimates if it does not newly acknowledge the
 largest acknowledged packet.
 An RTT sample MUST NOT be generated on receiving an ACK frame that does not
-newly acknowledge at least one ack-eliciting packet.  A peer does not send an
-ACK frame on receiving only non-ack-eliciting packets, so an ACK frame that is
-subsequently sent can include an arbitrarily large Ack Delay field.  Ignoring
+newly acknowledge at least one ack-eliciting packet. A peer usually does not
+send an ACK frame when only non-ack-eliciting packets are received. Therefore
+an ACK frame that only contains acknowledgements for non-ack-eliciting packets

Technically, it could still acknowledge other packets as well -- the key is which packets are *newly* acknowledged, isn't it?

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