Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time format (#109)

From: MikkelFJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:22:31 -0800

I renamed the uf16.h implementation to ufloat16.h for consistency with Go and Chromium implementations.

Regarding my earlier comment on 32-bit overflow in first timestamp, I can see that Chromium maps overflow to closest previously or next epoch, which is probably a good way to handle this without loosing precision.

Off topic, but some other vague formulation in current ACK frame spec I noticed:

Ordering of ack blocks is unclear because blocks can't grow beyond latest observed, and descending blocks are only mentioned in source comments:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/net/+/master/quic/core/quic_framer.cc#1967

With descending blocks, it is also not clear how STOP_WAITING can make the receiver stop waiting if there are pending gaps below latested_acked. Intuitively STOP_WAITING seems to be a lower bound beyond which neither acks nor ack gaps are transmitted, but that can't be

-- 
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/109#issuecomment-278397431