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

More detail regarding dropping of ACK Ranges #3581

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 29, 2020
Merged

Conversation

martinthomson
Copy link
Member

This explains what needs to be kept and why. Specifically, you need to
keep ranges unless you have other means of ensuring that you don't
accept packets from those ranges again. You also need to keep the
largest acknowledged so that you can get a packet number from subsequent
packets.

This also recommends that ACK frames include the largest acknowledged
always. That is primarily to ensure that ECN works properly, and even
there, you only disable ECN if you get some weird reordering, so it's
probably not a big deal if you don't follow this recommendation.

The issue is marked design, but the resolution here is basically a restatement of other text. I think we can run this through the design process, but it isn't really worth flagging this in a change log in my opinion.

Closes #3541.
Closes #3537.

This explains what needs to be kept and why.  Specifically, you need to
keep ranges unless you have other means of ensuring that you don't
accept packets from those ranges again.  You also need to keep the
largest acknowledged so that you can get a packet number from subsequent
packets.

This also recommends that ACK frames include the largest acknowledged
always.  That is primarily to ensure that ECN works properly, and even
there, you only disable ECN if you get some weird reordering, so it's
probably not a big deal if you don't follow this recommendation.

Closes #3541.
Closes #3537.
@martinthomson martinthomson added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. -transport labels Apr 15, 2020
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member Author

@janaiyengar you should probably look at this. I have marked the associated issue proposal ready anyway, but I'd appreciate another review.

@martinthomson martinthomson merged commit da3ad00 into master Apr 29, 2020
@martinthomson martinthomson deleted the keep-acknowledged branch April 29, 2020 01:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport 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.

Retaining the largest received packet number
4 participants