Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify when and what to ACK (#739)

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:27 -0700

Closes Issue #736
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/739

-- Commit Summary --

  * Clarify when and what to ACK

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (6)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/739.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/739.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/739

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:45:03 +0000 (UTC)

mcmanus approved this pull request.

lgtm

-- 
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/739#pullrequestreview-56801903

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:49:28 +0000 (UTC)

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

b4e4fb9  Tweak

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/739/files/68fe216a02fdce26e6a8ffac90a0c89b223810e7..b4e4fb9c279f740bb6bc8f4d7ea520847eba41e4

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:50:40 -0700

I tweaked it a little, but this is an improvement.  The concern that remains is that we do have a need to send ACK frames even if you only receive ACK frames, but this would still seem to prohibit it.

-- 
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/739#issuecomment-322946748

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:51:01 -0700

Merged #739.

-- 
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/739#event-1209351986

---

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:43:15 +0000 (UTC)

> The endpoint MUST acknowledge packets containing only ACK or PADDING frames in the next ACK frame that it sends.

Does this mean that, when we received 2nd packet which contains only ACK, it triggers generation of ACK only packet which contains ACKs for 1st and 2nd ACK only packets?  Or should we wait for reception of non-ACK packet?

-- 
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/739#issuecomment-323061953

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:13:25 -0700

@martinthomson If you need an ack of an ack frame for some reason, you can simply include a PING or other small frame with the ack.

@tatsuhiro-t I think the first sentence should now make this clear? "To avoid creating an indefinite feedback loop, an endpoint MUST NOT send an ACK frame in response to a packet containing only ACK or PADDING frames, even if there are packet gaps which precede the received packet."

-- 
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/739#issuecomment-323085997

---

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:00:45 +0000 (UTC)

Thank you.  So it precludes generation of ACK packet which only acks one or more ACK only packets.

-- 
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/739#issuecomment-323095852