Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reorganize ACK section (#2197)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:31:31 -0800

I was planning to make only two changes here, but there were a few
editorial itches I needed to scratch, so this does:

1. renames ACK Blocks to ACK Ranges

2. moves the First ACK Range field to the top level

3. renames the ECN Section to ECN Counters and adds a description of
   that field

4. uses the field names more consistently (s/Gaps/Gap fields/ and so
   forth)

5. makes figure and list intros more consistent
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2197

-- Commit Summary --

  * Reorganize ACK section

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (153)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2197.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2197.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/2197

---

From: ekr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:00:39 -0800

ekr commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2841,23 +2841,24 @@ needing acknowledgement are received.  The sender can use the receiver's
 Strategies and implications of the frequency of generating acknowledgments are
 discussed in more detail in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}.
 
-To limit ACK Blocks to those that have not yet been received by the sender, the
-receiver SHOULD track which ACK frames have been acknowledged by its peer.  Once
-an ACK frame has been acknowledged, the packets it acknowledges SHOULD NOT be
-acknowledged again.
+To limit the ranges of acknowledged packet numbers to those that have not yet
+been received by the sender, the receiver SHOULD track which ACK frames have
+been acknowledged by its peer.  Once an ACK frame has been acknowledged, the
+packets it acknowledges SHOULD NOT be acknowledged again.

this seems like over-strong guidance. Suppose that I receive 1 3 5, and I ack these, and that ACK is acked. I then receive 2, 4, 6. This advice would have me send an ACK frame with three ranges, whereas I could send one range.

-- 
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/2197#pullrequestreview-185426241

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:20:42 -0800

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

FWIW, I agree.  #2199

-- 
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/2197#discussion_r242017046

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:40:46 -0800

huitema commented on this pull request.

How about: ... _Once an ACK frame has been acknowledged, it is RECOMMENDED to not repeat acknowledgement of the same packets._ The point is, there is no harm whatsoever in repeating the range multiple times, but it is good practice to keep ACK frames short.

-- 
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/2197#discussion_r242018813

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:20:12 +0000 (UTC)

ianswett commented on this pull request.

+1 to Christian's suggestion or something along those lines.

-- 
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/2197#discussion_r242742439

---

From: MikkelFJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:52:09 +0000 (UTC)

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.

... Once an ACK frame has been acknowledged, it is RECOMMENDED to not repeat acknowledgement of the same packets whenever this can reduce the overall size of the next ACK frame.

-- 
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/2197#discussion_r242748854