When a piggybacked message is lost, and a duplicate request arrives at the server, the server
SHOULD acknowledge each duplicate copy of a Confirmable message using the same Acknowledgement
I agree that section 4.5. from the RFC leaves this open to discussion, because of the SHOULD key word.
However, I feel that it's worth resending the ACK with the response, specially in the context of block-wise transfers.
Otherwise, without this modification, if a piggybacked response of a block is lost, then the entire block-wise transfer needs to be restarted because currently the server will only send an empty ACK, no response.
When a piggybacked message is lost, and a duplicate request arrives at the server, the server
I agree that section 4.5. from the RFC leaves this open to discussion, because of the SHOULD key word.
However, I feel that it's worth resending the ACK with the response, specially in the context of block-wise transfers.
Otherwise, without this modification, if a piggybacked response of a block is lost, then the entire block-wise transfer needs to be restarted because currently the server will only send an empty ACK, no response.