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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sun, 01 March 2020 18:46 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 A8CE03A0B4D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 10:46:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 BntaBskDbtLE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 10:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2CA83A0B4C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; 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; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5N266MNHBJX5Y3ION4M7SAFEVBNHHCDF6P4Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/593130487@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/rrS27GeulYpqGKv2lPyLQyo0fvs>
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: 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451#issuecomment-593130487