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

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

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

```suggestion
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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302#pullrequestreview-189671385