A small question to the editors, if this targets the general Internet - you probably have an answer, there are various possibilities - how will this transport spec detect congestion, and what method will be used for congestion control?
Gorry > On 8 Sep 2021, at 17:41, Ryan Hamilton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Well said, Ian and Martin. I agree that no change is the right outcome here. > >> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:53 AM Ian Swett >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Agreed, if we're going to do this, I'd like to address it in the ack >> frequency draft and not in datagram. I also think there are valid use cases >> to not ACK stream data as well, such as Media over QUIC, where frames may >> not fit into a single QUIC packet. >> >>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:22 AM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> No change is good. It's nothing we can't fix trivially later if we find >>> that was the wrong outcome. And getting this right, even if it were >>> needed, would be tricky. It's also not all that useful when you consider >>> that ack frequency exists as a way to manage the cost and overhead of >>> acknowledgments. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, at 21:31, Lucas Pardue wrote: >>> > Hello QUIC WG, >>> > >>> > This is a consensus call for datagram issue #42 [1] - Allow a Sender to >>> > Control Datagram ACKs. The proposed resolution is to close this issue >>> > with no action. >>> > >>> > If you object to the proposal, please do so on the issue or in response >>> > to this message. >>> > >>> > The call will run for one week, closing at end of day on September 15 >>> > 2021, anywhere on earth. >>> > >>> > [1] https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/42 >>>
