Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move Generating Acknowledgements to Transport (#2916)

Nick Banks <> Sun, 21 July 2019 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F1212015F for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 Q1s1HRXc1Wv0 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55F7C120154 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:43:37 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1563731017; bh=ct7t3X9vtklAdGc4eJndBmZ5ZmgM9I1fq5ljLvBTZ1E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hICXcjzyygwM1FOQ//81ZDOZ1pjY0IGZhYA8a8rvnody0yo0ctac/so7NzJ/SycUP 2iG5B0OmoWmHXd/7KYFNUJYanzJPIxNGSVrM7oT4VidXMYZn3dquZNSlc+OM7DE5Mc L5AbyPr0n+3p2Dc2bXwLSzXs2s2D6y2rd3cIlZ8o=
From: Nick Banks <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2916/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move Generating Acknowledgements to Transport (#2916)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d34a449937d3_75443f91a72cd968556896"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 17:43:40 -0000

nibanks approved this pull request.

> @@ -2880,6 +2880,28 @@ packet.
 expectations about what implementations do with packets that have errors after
 valid frames? -->
+## Generating Acknowledgements {#generating-acks}
+An acknowledgement SHOULD be sent immediately upon receipt of a second
+ack-eliciting packet. QUIC recovery algorithms do not assume the peer sends
+an ACK immediately when receiving a second ack-eliciting packet.
+In order to accelerate loss recovery and reduce timeouts, the receiver SHOULD
+send an immediate ACK after it receives an out-of-order packet. It could send

What's the exact definition for `out-of-order`? If the last packet number received is `X`, are received packet numbers of `X+2` and `X-1` both considered out of order?

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