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

Clarify the Timestamps section #360

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Clarify the Timestamps section #360

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

ianswett
Copy link
Contributor

@ianswett ianswett commented Mar 6, 2017

Intends to resolve #308

Copy link
Member

@martinthomson martinthomson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd like to see more clarification of the "Delta Last Acknowledged 1..N" section. It's still not clear that this is relative to the last acknowledged.

@@ -1221,6 +1221,13 @@ Unlike TCP SACKs, QUIC ACK blocks are cumulative and therefore irrevocable.
Once a packet has been acknowledged, even if it does not appear in a future ACK
frame, it is assumed to be acknowledged.

QUIC ack frames contain a timestamp section with up to 255 timestamps.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK frames.

@ianswett
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianswett commented Mar 7, 2017

Added a section to further clarify that Delta Last Acknowledged 1..N" is relative to the last acknowledged

@@ -1352,6 +1358,10 @@ receive times relative to the beginning of the connection.
~~~
{: #timestamp-format title="Timestamp Section"}

The timestamp section is time-ordered, so the 1 byte Delta Largest
Acknowledged is always relative to the Largest Acknowleged, but the Time
Since Previous Timestamp fields are relative.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would suggest moving this to below the descriptions of the fields. Suggested rewording: "The timestamp section lists packet receipt timestamps ordered by timestamp." I think you can drop the rest of this paragraph since it's redundant with text in the descriptions.

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

Rebased and merged manually.

@martinthomson martinthomson deleted the ianswett-patch-3 branch March 8, 2017 07:07
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

@ianswett, can you try to remember to name your branches in future. These branch names are going to collide with old patches (as this one already did, causing me some confusion).

@ianswett
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianswett commented Mar 8, 2017

Sure, I'm happy to name them. I didn't realize it mattered.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

"retransmitting" old timestamps in ACK frames
3 participants