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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

acknowledgments receiver is data sender #265

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

acknowledgments receiver is data sender #265

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ endpoint performance in the following ways:
critical for high bandwidth connections.

- Similarly, receiving and processing UDP packets can also be CPU intensive, and
reducing acknowledgment frequency reduces this cost at a data sender.
reducing number of packets that only contain acknowledgments also reduces
this cost at a acknowledgments receiver which is the data sender.
Comment on lines +142 to +143
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
reducing number of packets that only contain acknowledgments also reduces
this cost at a acknowledgments receiver which is the data sender.
reducing the number of acknowledgments also reduces the processing
cost on the sender side.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thinks this change mostly reverts my proposed change. I think the original sentence was correct, so if people think more words don't help, we don't have to accept this PR. But I thought it might clarify things. I guess it would be good if @LPardue takes a look who raised the issue.

Copy link
Member

@LPardue LPardue Jan 31, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So after thinking some more, IMO there's a bit too much passive voice in the current document, making it hard to determine the subject and the effects. I made a new PR that makes things clearer to me at least - #271


- For asymmetric link technologies, such as DOCSIS, LTE, and satellite,
connection throughput in the forward path can become constrained
Expand Down
Loading