Re: Second WGLC for QUIC Acknowledgement Frequency

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Gorry!

I created a PR, so others can quickly review this before we merge!

https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency/pull/296/files

Mirja



On 21.05.24, 19:33, "Gorry Fairhurst" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


On 03/05/2024 01:00, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> The document authors have recently published 09 of
draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency [1]. This address feedback received during
the last WGLC and leaves us with zero open issues or pull requests.
>
> We're running a second, shorter, WGLC to give folks an opportunity to
review the entire changeset before progressing document. It commences
now and concludes on Friday May 10 2024 anywhere on earth.
>
> Please direct feedback as issues on the github repository at
> https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency <https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency>.
>
> Cheers
> Lucas & Matt
> QuIC WG Chairs
>
>
> [1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency/>


I've read -09, the changes seem fine to me, I think this is ready to
progress, but I do have some editorial comments (mainly on the new text):


1. The text says:


“it leaves the determination of how
frequently to send acknowledgments in response to ack-eliciting
packets to the data receiver, without any ability for the data
sender
to impact this behavior.”


- This new sentence construction includes two “to”s. That seems rather
clumsy, could we rewrite without one of them, such as:


“the data receiver determines how
frequently to send acknowledgments in response to ack-eliciting
packets, without any ability for the data sender
to impact this behavior.”
--


2. The text says "impact" twice:
“to impact this behavior.”
- Is impact correct? is this better as /influence/ or /guide/ or /control/
(This also appears later as: “without any ability for the data sender to
impact”...)
--




3. The text says: "high bandwidth connections".


- I do not think that this is really about the path /bandwidth/ ...
isn’t this actually the application rate, so ought it to be high-rate
connections?
--


4. The text says:
"of packet 10 needs to trigger another immediate ACK because only with
the reporting of the successful receiption of packet 10, the sender
will be able to declare packet 7 as lost (with a reordering threshold"
- This was an awkward read, and also includes a typo. Could this be
something like:


"of packet 10 needs to trigger another immediate ACK, because
the sender will be unable to declare packet 7 as lost (with a reordering
threshold
of 3) until it receives an ACK reporting the reception of packet 10."
--


5. The text says:
"if multiple CE-marked packets are received in a row"
- I am not sure what is intended by "in a row", would it be clearer as
this or something else?:
"if multiple consecutive CE-marked packets are received?"


--


Best wishes,




Gorry