Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify ACK sending text in transport (#3480)

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:51:03 -0800

The end of #3451 strayed into whether you could expect ACKs for non-ack-eliciting packets and why it was a SHOULD not a MUST to ACK every ACK-only packet at least once.

I'm filing this to add some text about cases when you definitely would not expect to receive an ACK of an ACK-only packet(ie: connection close and dropping PN space) and clarify that a sender cannot rely on receiving an acknowledgement of every packet, whether it's ack-eliciting or not, because ACKs get lost.

It's also possible there needs to be more clarity around "An endpoint MUST NOT send a non-ack-eliciting packet in response to a non-ack-eliciting packet, even if there are packet gaps which precede the received packet." since I intended to disallow Igor's suggestion when I wrote 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/issues/3480