enumerate packets not to ack?
Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Wed, 31 May 2017 18:28 UTC
Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.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 04548128854 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.164
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 AAyKIr4jn2w4 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (linode6only.ducksong.com [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe6e:e8da]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2E91200C1 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com (mail-qk0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C85D33A0A7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 14:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y201so18866209qka.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCyxXGHKGiM+9SqIE3L31hYUNm1+NcjyltntL+mfFnJt6d1+sIf hkifkkHq0Ue4j172DgBtUsRYzJjOLg==
X-Received: by 10.55.91.70 with SMTP id p67mr31223611qkb.237.1496255331510; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.178.74 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 14:28:51 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqq=uBYTEdL0F1SYdTQXCxt31d-z=ZvRAqdb0784iURtg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqq=uBYTEdL0F1SYdTQXCxt31d-z=ZvRAqdb0784iURtg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: enumerate packets not to ack?
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114cad4c87300e0550d617e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/pEEA7ltCDppPncw6xBeiF8xlb3g>
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: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:28:54 -0000
Quic-Friends, It seems clear that Version Negotiation and Server Stateless Retry packets should not be acknowledged (afterall they cannot be retransmitted, and they use packet numbers not generated by the sender).. but I can't find any text that says this. Am I missing it, should we add it, other? I guess I'm particularly concerned about interop running into "The sender MUST close the connection if an unsent packet number is acknowledged" if acks are sent here.. -P
- enumerate packets not to ack? Patrick McManus
- Re: enumerate packets not to ack? Jana Iyengar
- Re: enumerate packets not to ack? Martin Thomson
- Re: enumerate packets not to ack? Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: enumerate packets not to ack? Martin Thomson