Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 17:03:46 -0800
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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/zrktbzzLx3RR5DCiM7P5NPSsv2o>


----==_mimepart_5c33f6f23d833_44e3fbc908d45b416362d5
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
----==_mimepart_5c33f6f23d833_44e3fbc908d45b416362d5
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<p><b>@janaiyengar</b> commented on this pull request.</p>

<hr>

<p>In <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302#discussion_r245849623">draft-ietf-quic-transport.md</a>:</p>
<pre style='color:#555'>&gt;  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
</pre>
<p>I don't have a strong opinion, but PROTOCOL_VIOLATION seems like a fine error for this.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302#discussion_r245849623">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkq3Zq2XzwgU3qweSMQM_iOI09Whikks5vA-5ygaJpZM4ZyrCo">mute the thread</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkqxw68IByJhauJck8YTB9b0sfqFihks5vA-5ygaJpZM4ZyrCo.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"quicwg/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avatar_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@janaiyengar commented on #2302"}],"action":{"name":"View Pull Request","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302#discussion_r245849623"}}}</script>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302#discussion_r245849623",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2302#discussion_r245849623",
"name": "View Pull Request"
},
"description": "View this Pull Request on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>
----==_mimepart_5c33f6f23d833_44e3fbc908d45b416362d5--