Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] A few proposed edits for #1139 (#1153)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 23:23:18 +0000 (UTC)

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153

-- Commit Summary --

  * A few proposed edits for #1139

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md (19)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:21:23 +0000 (UTC)

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -439,12 +439,11 @@ receiving a second full-sized packet.
 Out-of-order packets SHOULD be acknowledged more quickly, in order
 to accelerate loss recovery.  The receiver SHOULD send an immediate ACK
 when it receives a new packet which is not one greater than the
-largest received packet number.  If a receiver processes multiple
-packets before sending any ACK frames in response, they MAY not
-send an immediate ack if the received packets form a contiguous
-sequence starting one larger than the largest acked.
+largest received packet number.  A receiver MAY delay acknowledgment by up
+to its maximum ack delay as long as it receives a contiguous sequence
+starting at the largest acknowledged.

So, what I was hoping to convey is that if you process 5 packets, and they don't arrive in order, but there end up being no new gaps after processing, then it's ok to not send an immediate ack.

In practice, this is a pretty good thing to do, particularly on higher bandwidth or lower powered devices.  Maybe this deserves a full paragraph with a clearer explanation?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153#pullrequestreview-101176682

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:17:17 -0800

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

Yes, that is what I understood.  If you want to add, "even if those packets don't arrive in sequence", that might make that clearer.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153#discussion_r172348059

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:02:38 +0000 (UTC)

Since Ian partially incorporated this change and merged the parent PR, what's the correct parent/state of this PR?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153#issuecomment-371329755

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:06:48 +0000 (UTC)

I hope it's no longer necessary, but I'm open to changes to the current text.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153#issuecomment-371330474

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:57:38 +0000 (UTC)

I trust Ian's judgment here.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153#issuecomment-371340022

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:57:39 -0800

Closed #1153.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1153#event-1510183458