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

Igor Lubashev <> Tue, 04 February 2020 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE8E120255 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:17:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 dr8XdrzgEw-o for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58B90120821 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:17:21 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580847441; bh=gOODMTcZvcDAOIqHShdgAJfGBALRTqlgBESsrtqMwpQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MlrhTYtpdyCfjnQpFLDjXpiC/Jj56v539RDX55b9SAqLIWYcIclNT2q806wCvz4Xr bQcgB7BX7dlirfex2ftIKQ/jj0laldiWzbI+Ym7KMfK8I2GVF4CbjUZ63hd+SfnAZ2 NvTkPxpOMbvyxRe8PbtcCPZ6rq1gTeeW0cWBVOXQ=
From: Igor Lubashev <>
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_5e39d15124853_77da3fed7b0cd96c112244"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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, 04 Feb 2020 20:17:29 -0000

igorlord 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

@martinthomson Not sure about "when an ack-eliciting packet arrives with a packet number that more than one greater than **any** previously received packet". If a delayed packet has been received, would not you want to notify the other endpoint ASAP, in case it did not retransmit the data, yet?

I'd think "out of order" means "_any packet with a packet number other than one greater then the largest previously received packet number_".  (Or, optimizing a bit, "_any ack-eliciting packet with a packet number other than one greater then the largest previously received packet number, or a non-ack-eliciting packet with a packet number more than one greater then the largest previously received packet number_".)

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