I have more 2 thoughts about that third use-case in
draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency-02:
1. I have a request to reorientate the scenario for the 3rd case in
section 2 of draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency
Whilst it is true that severe capacity asymmetry for a path can result
in ack congestion, this seems to me to be a very specific case of where
a sub-IP network benefits from a lower volume of QUIC ACK traffic. The
QUIC WG applicability RFC section 7, has a more encompassing case -
which considers the impact of ACKs, rather than the current text which
only suggests a highly asymmetric link rate. Can we can also include
something based on the sentence there which says:
“Acknowledgments also incur forwarding costs and contribute to link
utilization, which can impact performance over some types of network.”
2. We looked carefully at the ACK implications of various quic
implementations, and have just completed a major research study on QUIC
AcKs which is now published in a paper here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sat.1466
This paper is entitled "Reducing the Acknowledgement Frequency in IETF
QUIC", and has actual measurements and analysis for various things that
are presented in draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency. The conclusions of that
work support the proposal for the ACK_Frequency frame, and hopefully
will be interesting to the group Also, I think it would be useful to
cite this as an informative reference example in
draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency!
Best wishes,
Gorry
