Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's Transport Comment 28 (#4640)

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 17:59:02 -0800

@kaduk said:

> Section 13.2.5
>
> > When the measured acknowledgement delay is larger than its
> > max_ack_delay, an endpoint SHOULD report the measured delay.  This
> > information is especially useful during the handshake when delays
> > might be large; see Section 13.2.1.
>
> I'm not sure I understand when this delay would not be reported even in
> the absence of this guidance.  Is the idea that you should specifically
> send an ACK with Largest Acknowledged corresponding to the highly
> delayed packet, even if you could send an ACK with a larger Largest
> Acknowledged (but lower delay)?

-- 
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/4640

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:56:50 -0800

This is to address the implication that max_ack_delay is a limit on the value of the field, as opposed to what it is (which is several things that are quite subtle and addressed well in -recovery, so I won't repeat them).

No action proposed here.

-- 
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/4640#issuecomment-755903346

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 01:47:07 -0800

Closed #4640.

-- 
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/4640#event-4194945854