Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN not required (#2156)
From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <[email-masked]>
Cc: Subscribed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:27:43 -0800
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>

As I recall the discussion in Kista seemed to converge to requiring ECN when possible (I disticntly remember “using QUIC as a driver for ECN deployment” raised as a reason to do so), but I also don’t recall detailed discussion of requirements levels (SHOULD vs MUST); there was also a recognition that the state of userland access to ECN bits would be a big obstacle to mandatory deployment.

(FWIW I’m strongly in favor of “SHOULD offer/negotiate, unless implementation platform does not support; SHOULD allow config to disable for operational reasons (largely in non-Internet networks using the bits with other semantics a la DCTCP)” i.e. as MUST as realistically possible)

Is there a good reason not to do ECN when the underlying platform supports?

-- 

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/2156#issuecomment-447252222