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

Excess ack_delay could be non-compiance #4218

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Oct 15, 2020
Merged

Conversation

ianswett
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #4191

@ianswett ianswett added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. -recovery labels Oct 15, 2020
@gloinul
Copy link
Contributor

gloinul commented Oct 15, 2020

Works for me, so I consider this issue resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

@janaiyengar janaiyengar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One nit

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ianswett and others added 2 commits October 15, 2020 16:26
Co-authored-by: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
@janaiyengar janaiyengar merged commit 1e6e346 into master Oct 15, 2020
@janaiyengar janaiyengar deleted the ianswett-noncompliant-acks branch October 15, 2020 21:01
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.

recovery-31: Motivation for max_ack_delay statement
3 participants