IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 08 January 2019 01:03 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 DB211130E05 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:03:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.661 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 xgtgyNCFA5cU for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:03:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 672D812F1A6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:03:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 17:03:46 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1546909426; bh=1pu5fYPWxbJs4IXCafUlk+QKiL7WOCd0PL/S9Z+xSk0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yZUniSueo8a3Tv0unJ0ZanPC5JtIq8j0Wb7DnF8kSjrFBTYxO4D3nm5kPUMhrs7Bk ukMT6JethIWLrsdM5X5FaciXZQDCVNTLZMQq6Jlx/tYTZuQ1AKMERo/LmPDwaIEq7q D9qx2D2SkDi+JYnCO8cmCi0NnRzgSbwUbvAVM+Is=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba7b61b4530a6cfa8756af5e637235763c08c986292cf00000001184bb8f292a169ce179f2fda@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302/review/190058123@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of non-existent packet is illegal (#2302)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c33f6f23d833_44e3fbc908d45b416362d5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/zrktbzzLx3RR5DCiM7P5NPSsv2o>
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: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 01:03:50 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



>  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

I don't have a strong opinion, but PROTOCOL_VIOLATION seems like a fine error 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#discussion_r245849623

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email