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.

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

Conversation

mirjak
Copy link
Contributor

@mirjak mirjak commented Jan 12, 2024

fixed #224

@mirjak mirjak mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2024
Comment on lines +142 to +143
reducing number of packets that only contain acknowledgments also reduces
this cost at a acknowledgments receiver which is the data sender.
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

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

LPardue added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2024
Alternative to #265.

Fixes #224
LPardue added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2024
Alternative to #265.

Fixes #224
@LPardue LPardue mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2024
@mirjak mirjak closed this Jan 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Receiving != data sender
3 participants