Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK generation recommendation (#3304)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 14:24 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 2B0C0120047 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.383 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 tfYFJeTUNi_O for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 647B9120045 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-cd7bc13.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-cd7bc13.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.102]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6393B6E0212 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576851864; bh=FacU+nEKWGSfkIFkgHBk1C/ny4OHQrdiw0sef38L8rQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vlpwUEDHsQqy4kY9isM64D5B14fhYcYfhVk5NPgqg8LlBkS4ogru0sXfi1kwSsBkI xVczZzmF7veCDnr0LAS441fH4grS3CiEnla63BnRv7z7H3fFoG/1smQzSigllC82HG 3W7NI+GWFMKHsUY9VMnYuzklfXiDphthuB8Jd4NA=
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:24 -0800
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZE577EOIWTNLRXYMN4BIGBREVBNHHCAHNJCY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304/567941804@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK generation recommendation (#3304)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dfcd99851e3e_15ae3fba6f0cd96011321e7"; 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/vodr2RyGEtP-Wo0iUnTID3osbX8>
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:24:27 -0000

@larseggert Can you clarify what "ACK every burst" is?  Is this along the lines of the optimization described in recovery: "As an optimization, a receiver MAY process multiple packets before sending any ACK frames in response. In this case the receiver can determine whether an immediate or delayed acknowledgement should be generated after processing incoming packets."

Would adding an "Always ACK every IW to limit bursts" be a helpful addition?

-- 
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/3304#issuecomment-567941804