IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Question on ECN validation (#3733)

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Tue, 16 June 2020 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 D6BC83A0DFF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 jvHLue57f0O8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o11.sgmail.github.com (o11.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22A663A0E5B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=+y4d0lMXQGuiwyjcfD1uFDJO1WuD7uQAJA+MkZR5inE=; b= M461hKLpVBjEKlG157SsIOb0PmbrP988gYOr58VSWD/WUqoqOPphFEFDd3u5WwfI zQT7PW7hbUMR6dUNNx7l35ee0WeqxHu69F7sXj+hqv7D4VHesgHW3SUfgBIM5+cH 3nPrB+GgVdasZpCHLP8jqK3jsLv8dQB+rpiNQOlXNm8=
Received: by filter1465p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1465p1las1-5462-5EE8C0C7-10 2020-06-16 12:53:27.36786691 +0000 UTC m=+662367.929460040
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (unknown) by geopod-ismtpd-6-0 (SG) with ESMTP id M2gtrtdNQ3Ct7vogbJq9Ww for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:53:27.179 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0D33D4085F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:53:27 +0000
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5UH2XTHW6SIEN3BD546SQ4PEVBNHHCLJE5JM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3733/644743168@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3733@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3733@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Question on ECN validation (#3733)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ee8c0c719b70_19ed3fc0590cd95c104706a"; 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
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2ZfABdlJqa+N6r3sQuFU4zLwI9iEWyKRstPi yuvJ+aaI+GkYcoiOV9TgWja+O9fGCukjiVyvinE5wAfokka7flVCdmeRni3XyyCHIwi7u9up7zewVb tKI9vpqvdWeOkJ1UpRyb6qSVZulZfayHAr+HwcfuEq1zRoJlk8xSl8O6gQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/5mA4w3TC_V0xtYqPscVNbW0xrSE>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:53:33 -0000

Right... I got confused that the condition is about moving into failure mode. 

So usually the numbers should always be exactly equal; only if some marked packets get not ack'ed at all the received count could be larger than the number of marked sent and ack'ed packet. I guess, if you know that this is not the case you could be even stricter.

Otherwise if there are no unack'ed packets and the received count would be larger, it would mean you have some remarking from Not-ECT to ECT or CE. That less a problem in terms of hiding congestion but might still indicate that something is wrong... however, given that you mark all packet in your implementation with ECT(0) that case should not happen.


-- 
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/issues/3733#issuecomment-644743168

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email