IETF Logo Mail Archive

allowed to exceed max_ack_delay?

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 20 March 2019 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A8112D4EF for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 OXs-0-vT4Jcf for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9BAA1228B7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id w1so4270119wrp.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=LjI15GgPeTxooss1d8J/Wkh6JlgNblFEQTcu55QU4xs=; b=CQFCvIHK8jMSS8A7Pb0hbi4dZM4QQEHUip7WFToenYdcZ+bq9NnaUdJ28QlVM72o01 hRfyCpkV5fQ7Xan8yTpiGxaekko4tjCNq8HTZyRpPtvAma1Hn71zIlN0NO29l/vMwkKB 5fUsK57NowmkEqjOCb6iCXTuw44Zml7Bd3vAfN0shBeOsuSmEQOjeafVZKIlmt1ShClT cJCARPrxCAKXleagI7Js2lu7b/AA1k2vU3QJVml//qmKKtD4zF4SdoZscQStI8yrydhG Tqfo4blBl+Nw6cKojtbh5sEz4UdX17iT/OYignIBNwRS3C1jAspl6PRZRIq5NHkZySKt x1Bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=LjI15GgPeTxooss1d8J/Wkh6JlgNblFEQTcu55QU4xs=; b=kch89clor0DEJxLTDxV20e62p1yHCPsMdMEkooFQ9uyxa6iAHqZjjjtgIshtWqiu/o Jwy3KSlSpJJMzVYB/T2LSnRcJPvoxZ3EyO7oUjxfbC0OBYb+/AKwzW1goBfhEjdvjn6I KQP5Cf12K9sz+VwFPPtifcGfA0ZBHJAfRCE+QHSjggA4hInQr4l0zQBgE5rMOwrtq8DH SijGtHeKlHcJMSIS00n2MTChYD+9vmAyJJrrSOs4C1rVZDkxmeHxQx3r/y31OqBEvGOa RBLozMpao0af1KnlhWrvtqM2xf66SKCIz8oE+bHm2r0mHsiiHNUJv1X9inSGzh/a2xuh 5kkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWYDE7+Q+Vx6CrhGr2POpW74RM5ZknMASE8EvtuTOMMvzFulCWW YeyFdJYijA7XUAwoOQAZ7y8UV6QgL2q13MmYCukTOK91
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxRpMgGJsaLhJokT6uODgdH6B47LLByTM9tVksGHV9howw255H6f6QTVG+zqmbjVZMq7H40c6tUYcB/o0kBdfQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a89:: with SMTP id s9mr104939wru.58.1553113633129; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:27:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxT76x2USTpehwAZ2Qyr=S8EDW_fNfKS22nZcAHDLax=tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: allowed to exceed max_ack_delay?
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006608af05848c72dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/1oksi71HCNkQ1UMFEZXyEgOG96w>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:27:17 -0000

Section 13.1.1 states:
"The receiver's delayed acknowledgment timer SHOULD NOT exceed the current
RTT estimate or the value it indicates in the max_ack_delay transport
parameter."

Do we intend to allow exceeding max_ack_delay? Should it be a MUST NOT?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email