Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Negotiate use of timestamps in ACK frame (#774)

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

Negotiating timestamps sounds good to me, though I'd hope we can agree on one format for most use cases.

I can see the use case for requesting only 1 timestamp per ack frame vs requesting one timestamp for every newly acked packet.

I would really like to keep timestamps(and ECN when it's added) as parts of the ack frame because it's much more challenging to implement congestion control if the information arrives in sequence(even in different packets) instead of at the same time.  Timestamps in particular are closely related to the acked packets, and given we'll likely want to support multiple ack frames in a single packet in the future, having multiple ack frames and multiple timestamp frames would become really complex.

It does make acks 'more complex' but the overall complexity is lower.

Timestamps are already forbidden from unprotected ack frames, so it should be simple enough to negotiate timestamps and only use them post-handshake.

-- 
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/774#issuecomment-330274043