IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: enumerate packets not to ack?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 01 June 2017 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 88323129ABE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 18:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 ZTJxfOR_TESe for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 18:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (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 A05EB1294A2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 18:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 99so18329115lfu.1 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 18:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=StsdgMtZGnkunJpejv5qWnt+XroErWEcV6NybZXaYfA=; b=vANv8cM+f+VmbaY127uyxTrcceMAJtzPM74zY0bwYALcfIhoTT6uaN04OgjrJI817S 6kDpUqRfiPy9hZgjO6wdRgM/ugEBztZ4hv8Y0zivC7p0LgpNU1jSPtmq+XChpyAV5OPs NNtgtgK4nEkhdu5/w9+zBfGcEPfB4LNcTyvjzqb9NawOQIs+Sbg+lIq1lx7IAUeusTPP Ns3v3mYn9m3DFGtWc9sQGpHQuIAdTB+SDyujTLkgJnjAnbg+1gcox6I+za6kKv1PuRSs vX/ryRO011VdBV8bXDDmr/0EvGelLrcWhkUf2MkJ7f6MUthvMZ7uYhOSXFpyM/kxKqJp 4vbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=StsdgMtZGnkunJpejv5qWnt+XroErWEcV6NybZXaYfA=; b=nNK1YYd0Pepoc/8bY6JR9guRzno8mio8sndaLL8zjJS0BvlJj0UrcHk46Ao6/NzUWT 1nweSFVZuUp/CC4hoZEmnEpcgXE+21xm76rrPkOFlZ2ibFZLpwg6JlY//erEDO+hFCQ0 2aGZrLlH1+WC7pWeAf8yeok++viivJeI0qoKArXWBGV2V/JWagrYBdDcBF57GP3kksWE RAaALozt2U34i4cIBAiTQExIrG/mnobZ6hk9ZN3DAaKs71W56s9vPNItEMrNhGknh4cU eLsSBZ+Ob4okRm51p0lcCS2Ew2h46OgG16MqaMg/i3Lhfu7mNJd0YLHM3f5Mi1Fo5c2O R7Fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBiKg4o76tSp5I2WI7NFyNU7nLj18Ze2Td/f6O0tKdGICXhXfzM 3GUDGg2MdZZMm9LPj+Dyqvi4+9D3Og==
X-Received: by 10.46.7.10 with SMTP id 10mr9058888ljh.113.1496280112978; Wed, 31 May 2017 18:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.8.66 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2017 18:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGD1bZZPAU51+S4s+ywLyxzTo5_DFtbOn2NFFs3-SSXcw9b=3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNqq=uBYTEdL0F1SYdTQXCxt31d-z=ZvRAqdb0784iURtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZZPAU51+S4s+ywLyxzTo5_DFtbOn2NFFs3-SSXcw9b=3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:21:52 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXvYGQJ=RFtkZ_wdN2WQGhOBu0_AvZsBQcQcgcDJWgJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: enumerate packets not to ack?
To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/k4ym1KM4HBxrdsSzYFTBrPnwAZs>
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 01:21:56 -0000

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