Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 12 February 2020 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D48120858 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:33:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.381
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.381 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TOS5FInktJ28 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2646120086 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:33:41 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581471221; bh=u3vfWwDVRGUrAx+H4t1FDLotpJR7JqR1A1axT1mwINA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MEixpZ4j/H+t/bJr7D8h7RSBGkRXq/52HIMYiXOC2wBmEO9nGVyvz4R3x84b+CPqM U2GUDqHALP4QEvQRbEFrNk6xUW8dZPqYro4pcCm6TQWUxMDCgrD+vHSXRmK7zcQA3V qz+m/gZb1F1IXIk8DpAIyrIKZdlKSkKF6GClmpWU=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4355f5d983b_724e3fc6b8ecd95c2742dc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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, 12 Feb 2020 01:33:45 -0000

I do not think we need to allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost in the specification. That's something an implementation _might_ do.

At the same time, I'd point out that QUIC is designed on the premise that "acknowledgment of ACK-only packets when sending an ACK for other ACK-eliciting packets." The most prominent example is [section 13.2.4](; the entire section is based on the assumption that an endpoint behaves that way. Therefore, we should be clear about the requirement, if we aren't already clear about that.

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