Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Only send one immediate ACK (#3361)

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:32:02 -0800

Fixes #3357
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3361

-- Commit Summary --

  * Only send one immediate ACK

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (10)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3361.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3361.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/3361

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 04:31:00 -0800

@ianswett pushed 1 commit.

0a2fed988a64ca0767c045fd677e641aacbd50a0  MUST -> SHOULD

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3361/files/b2144658e256b02511dc607574ada4db9d71d838..0a2fed988a64ca0767c045fd677e641aacbd50a0

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:35:20 -0800

kazuho commented on this pull request.

LGTM modulo one nitpick.

> @@ -3136,12 +3136,10 @@ This recommendation is in keeping with standard practice for TCP {{?RFC5681}}.
 
 In order to assist loss detection at the sender, an endpoint SHOULD send an ACK
 frame immediately on receiving an ack-eliciting packet that is out of order. The
-endpoint MAY continue sending ACK frames immediately on each subsequently
-received packet, but the endpoint SHOULD return to acknowledging every other
-packet within a period of 1/8 x RTT, unless more ack-eliciting packets are
-received out of order.  If every subsequent ack-eliciting packet arrives out of
-order, then an ACK frame SHOULD be sent immediately for every received
-ack-eliciting packet.
+endpoint SHOULD not continue sending ACK frames immediately unless more

not -> NOT

-- 
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/3361#pullrequestreview-344943800

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:38:06 -0800

5af33e54216e64024779612263152c8cff7d04bf  Kazuho's suggestion

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3361/files/0a2fed988a64ca0767c045fd677e641aacbd50a0..5af33e54216e64024779612263152c8cff7d04bf

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:38:21 -0800

ianswett commented on this pull request.

Thanks, done!

-- 
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/3361#discussion_r368227383

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:28:01 -0800

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

We still need to know what "out of order" means.  I presume that this is "when an ack-eliciting packet arrives with a packet number that more than one greater than any previously received packet" or something like that.

-- 
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/3361#pullrequestreview-345098911

---

From: Kazuho Oku <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:39:01 -0800

Agreed. I think that's the definition we are looking for to close #3347, though I am now beginning to wonder if we need "ack-eliciting" within the condition.

Shouldn't receiving a packet with a PN gap, regardless of the packet being ACK-eliciting or not, trigger an immediate ACK?

-- 
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/3361#discussion_r368401951

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:48:07 -0800

Yeah, I should have moved the definition from the recovery draft when the ACK text was moved.

I believe moving text is an editorial change, so how about I do that in a separate 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/3361#discussion_r368704481

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:29:11 -0800

janaiyengar approved this pull request.

-- 
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/3361#pullrequestreview-345581960

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:28:17 -0800

#3369 

-- 
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/3361#discussion_r369139876