Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of non-existent packet is illegal (#2302)

ianswett <> Mon, 07 January 2019 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8F71292F1 for <>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 20:00:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.065
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 IHvLzVCJAtfs for <>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 20:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B0B8127133 for <>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 20:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 20:00:52 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1546833652; bh=6jqbc8OOdfsGs3uXso9fh7CwqKLtVjfiwkPRL8pZ7sI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pPI1UVwa0qd+liUPBaKGWPY7irrtyj20Sz13qafosiB3Vs7pKPR43XDYke3gx97b+ DRz2n7FPjuzyhnrDBUoInx5AMxMlUhcqUJ1qdqvcp6I+h2dzSYRP+3VLZWYGJBvUWN BaKwEbjv3SbrnMz/xpFqeTL2XFGPslw0JQiK+jsw=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of non-existent packet is illegal (#2302)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c32cef4901fe_5b6b3f9bd38d45c429765"; 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
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 04:00:55 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

Some suggestions

> @@ -2856,24 +2856,30 @@ needing acknowledgement are received.  The sender can use the receiver's
 Strategies and implications of the frequency of generating acknowledgments are
 discussed in more detail in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}.
-To limit ACK Blocks to those that have not yet been received by the sender,
-the receiver SHOULD track which ACK frames have been acknowledged.  The
-receiver SHOULD exclude already acknowledged packets from future ACK frames
-whenever these packets would unnecessarily contribute to the ACK frame size.
+To limit the ranges of acknowledged packet numbers to those that have not yet

To limit the ranges of acknowledged packets to those that have not yet

>  acknowledgment of its ACK frames, with the knowledge this could cause the sender
 to unnecessarily retransmit some data.  Standard QUIC {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}
 algorithms declare packets lost after sufficiently newer packets are
 acknowledged.  Therefore, the receiver SHOULD repeatedly acknowledge newly
 received packets in preference to packets received in the past.
+An endpoint SHOULD treat receipt of an acknowledgment for a packet it did not
+send as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION, if it is able to detect

As @marten-seemann said elsewhere, it'd be nice to have a new error code for this.

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