Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add details on how spurious losses may be detected #3064

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ianswett
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #3058

@ianswett ianswett added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. -recovery labels Sep 24, 2019
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

This doesn't seem particularly actionable. I mean, I could probably work something out, but if the goal is to provide a spec where it is relatively easy to follow the advice and produce a good implementation, then this doesn't meet that test.

@Ralith
Copy link
Contributor

Ralith commented Sep 24, 2019

I read this as "On acknowledgement of a packet, discard state for packets that were declared lost prior to the acknowledged packet's sending," which is at least enough to give me some ideas.

@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

I agree with @martinthomson. I don't want to ask for a detailed mechanism for doing this, but without it, the text here is not be particularly useful. Let's close this out.

@ianswett ianswett closed this Nov 1, 2019
@MikeBishop MikeBishop deleted the ianswett-spurious-loss branch March 18, 2020 19:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-recovery editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Clearer description of detecting spurious retransmissions
4 participants