I believe that's an oversight, and I don't see an errata for it yet: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9000
I'm curious if others agree? Thanks, Ian On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 8:44 PM Jaikiran Pai <jai.forums2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I was looking at the QUIC congestion control RFC 9002 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9002) section 3 and it states: > > "The types of frames contained in a packet affect recovery and > congestion control logic: > ... > Packets containing frames besides ACK or CONNECTION_CLOSE frames count > toward congestion control limits and are considered to be in flight." > > So as per RFC-9002, it means that ACK and CONNECTION_CLOSE frames do not > contribute to congestion control limits. > > On the other hand, RFC-9000, section 12.4 has a Table 3 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000#frame-types) which states: > > "The "Spec" column in Table 3 summarizes any special rules governing the > processing or generation of the frame type, as indicated by the > following characters: > ... > C: Packets containing only frames with this marking do not count toward > bytes in flight for congestion control purposes; see [QUIC-RECOVERY]." > > However, in that table, the CONNECTION_CLOSE frame isn't marked with the > "C" character and only the ACK frame is. Is this an oversight in this > table? > > -Jaikiran > > > >
