IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: enumerate packets not to ack?

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Thu, 01 June 2017 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 872ED12E045 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 00:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uh_rtEqghECT for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 00:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (virgo02.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.72.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FDC312E03C for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 00:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3wdfb06nnZz15PN9; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:47:56 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at virgo02.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from virgo02.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (virgo02.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0RjR3cstRc8; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:47:56 +0200 (CEST)
X-MtScore: NO score=0
Received: from [82.130.103.143] (nb-10510.ethz.ch [82.130.103.143]) by virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:47:56 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: enumerate packets not to ack?
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
References: <CAOdDvNqq=uBYTEdL0F1SYdTQXCxt31d-z=ZvRAqdb0784iURtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZZPAU51+S4s+ywLyxzTo5_DFtbOn2NFFs3-SSXcw9b=3g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXvYGQJ=RFtkZ_wdN2WQGhOBu0_AvZsBQcQcgcDJWgJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <89f91631-063f-706c-b132-c24b72cab10e@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:47:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXvYGQJ=RFtkZ_wdN2WQGhOBu0_AvZsBQcQcgcDJWgJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/IpDhJZg-LhQL2OWmQjJR3OCikSk>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:48:00 -0000

These are actually to different things. One is that you should not 
send/generate an ack frame just because you received an ack frame but no 
other data. The other point is that you actually can't really ack server 
retry or version negotiation because they don't have a valid packet number.

On 01.06.2017 03:21, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 1 June 2017 at 04:57, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> wrote:
>> Section 9 says acks must not generate acks, but this is a gap. We should
>> enumerate the packet types (and perhaps frame types too) that must not
>> generate acks. I've filed #563.
>
> What's the taxonomy?  Can we split this based on frame type?
>
> PADDING and ACK alone don't generate the need for an ACK.  However, a
> packet with any other frame type does.  Except when they are carried
> in Server Stateless Retry packets, which never generates
> acknowledgments.
>
> Version Negotiation packets don't contain frames so they don't cause
> acknowledgments to be needed.   Here's a thought: maybe they should.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email