I also agree we shouldn’t change it.
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 09:40, 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] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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
> > <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/42>
>
