IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK (#3047)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B9512011E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, 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
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H4aVN4bHJlzE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F8A12007A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.102.32]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49A9960481 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:30:58 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4KKXEMMXRH33FHQRV3R3EWFEVBNHHB2737AM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047/c532479549@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK (#3047)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d8188d296521_6a0f3fc6b3acd960796f0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/rPOHrubwqdBOjPsm6WrsgJ_h1yY>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:31:01 -0000

In a world governed by congestion controllers with pacing, I'm not sure that makes sense?  It seems to pull over some TCP ideas, but I'm not sure they're relevant here?  Certainly a congestion controller could decide to always send a packet after loss, but can we leave that up to the congestion controller?

-- 
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/pull/3047#issuecomment-532479549

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email