Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)

Jana Iyengar <> Tue, 09 April 2019 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B78120256 for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 NHEh56Q3xTqn for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9576F120251 for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:41:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1554777711; bh=PKPW3vSp5MKMYiwzwQVj8XuQvFL0eo8lDY0htNb88ek=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=J6xkt7adp12paGJZGPE3+cm4b67KxyIgXHbpA3a0T5o2ofAvm3BAEXoskQDfX+Kxw EFrB+9muHIaWO3yTOL1smY6Na+grdRGsIy5D6hNFr5QWI27P+kduClJz2vHde5AvLy LK/LpLsZEyamCyGg5QdZAHBKQfnTfSgWux7XU4LQ=
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2568/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cac066f90514_52a83fbba80d45b497584"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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, 09 Apr 2019 02:41:54 -0000

@marten-seemann : This pathological case is exactly why I'm proposing a change to "any acked packet was ack-eliciting".

@nibanks: To be clear, if you do not have any state for packets that are being acked, you have no choice but to ignore the ack. This is not a new rule, it just falls out of standard ack processing as we have it now.

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