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

ianswett <> Sun, 01 March 2020 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CE03A0B4D for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 10:46:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 BntaBskDbtLE for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 10:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2CA83A0B4C for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 10:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 10:46:26 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583088386; bh=5hZq68QEtxPDC22Y16gar3MwcrnmRoHGYTTWm42BL7w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MNaBE1EPJ/wJZ+O5SZ0Z+Edg7VgzZbmuqgRPNeVYi0cR1pa2IOmDFfyBHdp/bIYv7 dfmyc0DIHYATDbvD8QtgqTChWzeIOg1YLs9KhhLMXKre/dkw12owiPFcFSKzQLPP22 rmHxWwG3v7RVDHcAzLglT81do2GPUgaHfS96KLGc=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e5c030297b24_5a733f898becd96c362142"; 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
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: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 18:46:31 -0000

The difference between MUST with caveats(ie: connection-close/etc) and SHOULD is small to zero in practice I believe, since in both cases you may never receive an acknowledgement for the packet.

It's also an unenforceable MUST, which I hate adding unless it's critical to protocol correctness.

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