Review of draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency-01

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 09 November 2021 23:42 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 92D693A0B08 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:42:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 HzoprZpteEia for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:42:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) (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 B361B3A0AD5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:42:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id az37so1005451uab.13 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 15:42:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7As2dNW6UuwMJI7eE0E3shyrEgh7I2cWfwHMiJj2Q7Y=; b=SPCqdkRt7R1HuH1Op+3H+CcCWTMmRD6qfLY1Cwh/amsfKwr1KW+QBL1wjxEhdNWlV7 6eHm891G9kgQSxK0SmHCrGa/YpU4dblaZAXc2ooq0yZ7tY62vQP46qsa/924os8fB9W4 D7Qe/RMU9gu1TQnmxJ2p1XrIfahjF0EhhxpMB0N2/NLW1a7y/ts5B1SNm+gdzYLJihVT pfqLeMarZD3iUYjmdJeL1EOk9QBtu1j5rV1vQNYO6kSbNq0z9FL7lFiwog7lSaF/c++I 0ULJozmi+TSxvi0/gbfKT4cUv6384wWsZjk5sKDDy2ipq2pqDSrg/cvqqMKwxpxZa8xj KsOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7As2dNW6UuwMJI7eE0E3shyrEgh7I2cWfwHMiJj2Q7Y=; b=teEAG5fhB9e/ufas/en4Bpg6xl8W+dBx+AyoX0Z7Gm/9QOsytvPSjPNXRyBg1PM+vY qyj+LC0pdhCVBsTTm7Pi3gyg2O/exp4RKzbOfe3rqjCG91zlBa6+IWPbTgDZBY2uJWKa CQFWNQ8qhIS50UBG9Evaobnx3PPQX3h4tXr8puXrubMEpmjO4SlNz8gKMelzgm2xfEGo cJ3VcEghz6Uoox02zFZDf1Jkctnz3dec+Kdxt4w+NEH3vTmMJEEsEgmTr7q3n3SCskEG JRzYNc4VaF5KPne6lny16Mm2+uoMJG/yWtiP8LVfq5kdsZogCP73ERSVc+ppYmrUvlPD X26w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SdasgFUyZTe9qCZQppbaERcj+t5z7uhX3kNgcWML3/d+1ynut S887CPQ1truyH4j5YetkSUV6ZFyw/r3yacoNZlymQvHBREk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVkyahusNTBv9L2feSAwN4GFEY3RuJaU8PNRtQ72PsI+uY43Mii8ihi+xAwOW2wPPzvK+/rBarf7Gs9syjZvs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3e82:: with SMTP id m2mr18983696vsv.58.1636501375559; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 15:42:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:42:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTDUZqBMbQgqDOhbC5Unocb+j5FTaT7W+9ey2ndLKLmNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency-01
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a2c7805d063abd9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/3uJwWpMcjqiAl45DlGsmGVgyBtU>
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: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 23:43:00 -0000

I believe this work is valuable.

*Possibly unactionable discussion*:
The most obvious use case, to me, is a mobile client trying to conserve
power by limiting the number of acks it sends on a download. It therefore
seemed counter-intuitive to have this be a data-sender-driven process.
However, as the real limiting factor is the flexibility of the sender's
congestion control and loss recovery, I eventually saw that your chosen
design is more or less inevitable.

I wonder how to implement a server when this extension is ubiquitous. Is
the correct strategy to send ACK_FREQUENCY with quite large thresholds and
Requested max_ack_delay (and, presumably, also a quite high value of L for
Appropriate Byte Counting), so that a client sensitive to these can go as
high as it needs to?

*Nits*:
Please specify the acceptable packet types for each frame.

Please define what it means to "bundle" an acknowledgment.