Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Proposal for adding ECN support to QUIC. (#1372)

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Mon, 18 June 2018 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9AE130DF5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yZFmEreH7-0g for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E225A130DF9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:35:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1529336116; bh=sg+VVY9r2f2VDziRGh7Vp0moa77niuDSqaOpplpxLxY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fq2QzyuiLe8bT+QanbJeIBZu5VMABVtnjdk/lI+u3KYKyPJ20uOCbCxLCIIvEoXJe wVwhuxr4UCfQqhp8ivzF/fFqEvDh/GJwGl9aGrmI7am7JS7LQye26oMgdGZgsji2AT cl0sFoXG7qysr1nJI36Z9Om6uiG4+Nhj0eV7Cm3Q=
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab2a28cef0b06c1e53fd24fc1b7c965c34330c8c3692cf00000001173f933492a169ce13656182@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1372/review/129618560@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1372@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1372@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Proposal for adding ECN support to QUIC. (#1372)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b27d134b0d3_71dd2aba663aef582188e5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mirjak
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/-lmsKE7FswqMCZHRMPRz-Pp2DA0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:35:32 -0000

mirjak commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2887,6 +3033,95 @@ by a client in protected packets, because it is certain that the server is able
 to decipher the packet.
 
 
+## ACK_ECN Frame {#frame-ack-ecn}
+
+A QUIC connection MUST keep counters for each ECN codepoint, recording
+the number of packets that were received with the corresponding ECN
+codepoint in the IP header. If the header is not readable from the
+application, the codepoint 00 (Not-ECT) MUST be assumed. If any packet
+are duplicated by the network then only the value of the ECN field of
+the packet copy first received SHALL be included in the counters, the ECN
+field value for a duplicate SHALL be ignored. This to prevent the

I agree that this is an edge case and should hopefully not be a problem but saying in the spec that duplicated shall be ignored is not the right thing to do.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1372#discussion_r196124349