Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] It seems the minimal packet number length should be 14 bits (#2955)

Luo Kai <> Wed, 07 August 2019 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CD0120091 for <>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2o4f51p1KeVL for <>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7595F12000E for <>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 19:23:13 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1565144593; bh=KJGKcXCnMvROcn84w6E18b+vH5ysPWku7qYojWQTDD8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=y+kDEfflpPBTrCBiRSTV2f+yqZ+2DSxtxzOD2TFMEZ0OGDTOtuRWHfSym1k995xnL gUEIvYd2aY1I3ThYslOPmHMhfDc9pXkJEDgK/wCsDh3xYiHwyTfABPEWZ8QBPijnG+ POdCYkiMw0kAFxdQMYBAuVsIRkTMjmOxHTIim2Xs=
From: Luo Kai <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2955/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] It seems the minimal packet number length should be 14 bits (#2955)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d4a36119f595_5c983fe1bdacd9681180d3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: NKTelnet
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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 02:23:16 -0000

> > > Once we have used 8 bits length, we can only send 127 packets in flight and wait for response, though the congestion control and stream control allows us to send more than 127 packets and we have more packets to be sent, we can not send one packet more until received ACK. Changing bits length from 8 to 16 at this moment does not resolve this issue.
> > 
> > 
> > It **does not** resolve the issue that some of the 8-bit packets might be reordered and will end up undecryptable. It **does** solve the issue that at least the 16-bit packets will decode correctly, so the connection will make forward progress.
> > Agreed on no action for this issue.
> This issue will cause the receiver ""ACK the wrong packet number"" and the related stream will hang for ever.

If you want, I can explain why "ACK the wrong packet number" will cause the related stream hang

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