quicwg/ack-frequency

Issues

• Define what should happen if packets arrive outside `Missing Packet Threshold`

  #304 opened 4 months ago by michael-eriksson
  0

• Include note about loss detection update

  #306 opened 4 months ago by michael-eriksson
  0

• Loss detection fencepost error

  #305 opened 4 months ago by michael-eriksson
  0

• Idle period clarification

  #295 opened 6 months ago by MikeBishop
  0

• examples assume that 0 is not a valid packet number

  #299 opened 6 months ago by marten-seemann
  0

• inconsistent use of error codes

  #298 opened 6 months ago by marten-seemann
  0

• invalid reference to RFC 9002

  #297 opened 6 months ago by marten-seemann
  0

• How frequently should ACK_FREQUENCY be sent?

  #228 opened 10 months ago by martinthomson
  2

• no change in ack behavior before the first ACK_FREQUENCY frame?

  #253 opened 10 months ago by marten-seemann
  2

• Don't recommend sending one IMMEDIATE_ACK per RTT

  #227 opened 10 months ago by martinthomson
  4

• What is the max of Request Max Ack Delay field in ACK_FREQUENCY frame

  #235 opened 10 months ago by LPardue
  7

• Receiving != data sender

  #224 opened 10 months ago by LPardue
  2

• What is the maximum value of min_ack_delay?

  #232 opened 10 months ago by LPardue
  3

• Re-ordering threshold should be clearer it also affects gap threshold

  #247 opened 10 months ago by gloinul
  3

• Response to Long Idle periods

  #245 opened 10 months ago by gloinul
  5

• Receiving *and* sending the TP is required for the extension to be in use

  #234 opened 10 months ago by LPardue
  5

• Consider referencing RFC 9000 S 21

  #243 opened 10 months ago by LPardue
  1

• Reordering handling and Largest Reported

  #248 opened 10 months ago by gloinul
  6

• Reordering in initial paragraph of Sending Acknowledgments

  #246 opened 10 months ago by gloinul
  8

• The extension is a little weakly defined

  #229 opened 10 months ago by LPardue
  0

• Missing forward ref to ACK_FREQUENCY frame

  #230 opened 10 months ago by LPardue
  0

• Unit error

  #226 opened 10 months ago by martinthomson
  0

• Reordering threshold and ECN

  #225 opened a year ago by martinthomson
  3

• consider encoding a duration to not acknowledge every CE-marked packet

  #244 opened a year ago by marten-seemann
  12

• Is use of IMMEDIATE_ACK gated by min_ack_delay TP?

  #237 opened a year ago by LPardue
  0

• Can IMMEDIATE_ACK be sent in 0-RTT?

  #238 opened a year ago by LPardue
  2

• Consistency in presentation

  #233 opened a year ago by martinthomson
  0

• s/Section ((?:\d+\.)*\d+) of {{/{{Section $1 of /g

  #231 opened a year ago by martinthomson
  0

• Section 7 - what frame?

  #241 opened a year ago by LPardue
  0

• Does Sequence Number start at 0?

  #236 opened a year ago by LPardue
  3

• ACK_FRAME isn't a thing

  #239 opened a year ago by LPardue
  0

• acknowledg"e"ment or acknowledgment?

  #251 opened a year ago by kazuho
  1

• Are ACK_FREQUENCY or IMMEDIATE_ACK congestion controlled?

  #240 opened a year ago by LPardue
  2

• can can

  #242 opened a year ago by LPardue
  0

• PTO with IMMEDIATE_ACK if you increase reordering threshold

  #214 opened a year ago by ianswett
  2

• Caution against using Min RTT when requesting Max Ack Delay

  #215 opened a year ago by ianswett
  1

• Corner case leads to long delay for repeating lost packets.

  #213 opened a year ago by huitema
  3

• Add recommendation to send IMMEDIATE_ACK after app-limited period?

  #209 opened a year ago by mirjak
  5

• 6.2 Is the ECN behaviour robust to the various marking patterns?

  #188 opened a year ago by gorryfair
  2

• connection migration / multipath considerations

  #205 opened a year ago by marten-seemann
  2

• Draft-04 text about reordering threshold is ambiguous

  #200 opened 2 years ago by huitema
  3

• Section 8.3: DPLPMTUD can use Ping?

  #190 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  0

• 8.1 Congestion Control: Reordering Threshold of 1!

  #195 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  4

• Section title for 6.2

  #187 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  0

• Doesn't receiver acknowledge received packets?

  #199 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  0

• Could we please make an application-limited subsection?

  #197 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  0

• Section 8.1: Avoid conflating mechanisms that do multiple things

  #194 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  0

• Section 8.4: Should not have a SHOULD here.

  #189 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  1

• Is "sending frequently" specified enough?

  #198 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  2

• The example did not compile as a table/ascii-art in last ID.

  #186 opened 2 years ago by gorryfair
  1