Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Restrict ACK-clocking to ACK-only frames. (#1231)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

GitHub ate my homework, but let me take another look...

>  
 To limit ACK blocks to those that have not yet been received by the sender, the
 receiver SHOULD track which ACK frames have been acknowledged by its peer.  Once
 an ACK frame has been acknowledged, the packets it acknowledges SHOULD NOT be
 acknowledged again.
 
-A receiver that is only sending ACK frames will not receive acknowledgments for
-its packets.  Sending an occasional MAX_DATA or MAX_STREAM_DATA frame as data is
-received will ensure that acknowledgements are generated by a peer.  Otherwise,
-an endpoint MAY send a PING frame once per RTT to solicit an acknowledgment.
+Because ACK-only packets are not acknowledged, a receiver that is only
+sending ACK frames will only receive acknowledgements for its packets
+if the sender piggybacks them on other packets. In order to enable
+this, senders SHOULD prioritize sending ACKs along with their data.

I agree with this.  The point of changing this text is to make it clear what the consequences of particular design choices are.  I would remove this sentence (starting with "In order to enable").

>  
 To limit ACK blocks to those that have not yet been received by the sender, the
 receiver SHOULD track which ACK frames have been acknowledged by its peer.  Once
 an ACK frame has been acknowledged, the packets it acknowledges SHOULD NOT be
 acknowledged again.
 
-A receiver that is only sending ACK frames will not receive acknowledgments for
-its packets.  Sending an occasional MAX_DATA or MAX_STREAM_DATA frame as data is
-received will ensure that acknowledgements are generated by a peer.  Otherwise,
-an endpoint MAY send a PING frame once per RTT to solicit an acknowledgment.
+Because ACK-only packets are not acknowledged, a receiver that is only
+sending ACK frames will only receive acknowledgements for its packets
+if the sender piggybacks them on other packets. In order to enable
+this, senders SHOULD prioritize sending ACKs along with their data.
+In addition, if a receiver regularly issues additional flow control
+credit rather than just issuing infinite flow control credit at the

Again, I would remove "rather than just issuing infinite flow control credit at the beginning".  The point remains good though, so I'd keep the rest.

-- 
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/1231#pullrequestreview-104909628