Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Out of order relative to other ack-eliciting packets (#4000)

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 12:48:57 -0700

Merged #4000 into master.

-- 
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/4000#event-3716565626

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:51:25 -0700

@dtikhonov commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3557,12 +3550,15 @@ which could prevent the connection from ever becoming idle.  Non-ack-eliciting
 packets are eventually acknowledged when the endpoint sends an ACK frame in
 response to other events.
 
-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 SHOULD NOT continue sending ACK frames immediately 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.
+In order to assist loss detection at the sender, an endpoint SHOULD generate
+and send an ACK frame without delay when it receives an ack-eliciting packet
+either:
+
+* when the received packet has a packet number less than another ack-eliciting
+  packet that has been received, or
+* when the packet has a packet number larger than the highest-numbered
+  ack-eliciting packet that has been received and there are missing packets

This wording strikes me as odd.  A receiver does not know whether there are _missing packets_.  We should simply state that there is a gap in the packet numbers.

-- 
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/4000#pullrequestreview-486925361

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:14:59 -0700

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

@dtikhonov : _Missing packets_ is not the same as _lost packets_. The receiver knows when packets are missing, it just doesn't know whether they are reordered or lost.

-- 
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/4000#discussion_r488256497