-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
acks are not congestion control -> be careful #478
Conversation
this PR is a clarification based on the discussion in issue #454. Of course it's optimal to add this recommendation or not. However, it's in the implementation considerations section and I think at least noting the issue is a good thing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still think this is not needed. I think that we should expurgate that kind of text from the draft, and place it is a separate informational document, but if you really want to add it, I wont stand in the the way. In that case, I suggest a minor rewrite.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No strong opinion here. I think it is fine in the implementation section, but this section starts being very large...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks OK, besides on nit.
@qdeconinck the implementation section is currently 4.5 pages. It has a bunch of subsections but most of them are short. I think that is fine and I think we should more concentrate to have all the other sections concise and to the point. However, again, I'm planning to do a full editorial pass and I can imagine that some alignment in the implementation section might also make that part a bit shorter. Therefore I think we should merge for now. |
Co-authored-by: Yanmei Liu <[email protected]>
this PR is a clarification based on the discussion in issue #454. Of course it's optimal to add this recommendation or not. However, it's in the implementation considerations section and I think at least noting the issue is a good thing.