Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:27:43 -0800
From: Brian Trammell <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+0166e4ab07c1f83e0b752af463fdc6111b196286cf2478c092cf00000001182b2b7f92a169ce174bff2c@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2156/447252222@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2156@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2156@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN not required (#2156)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_5c13697fe41bc_8163fd4becd45c410712ea";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/AtPy3IWmTbM92ZyEKM5uCjKswa4>


----==_mimepart_5c13697fe41bc_8163fd4becd45c410712ea
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As I recall the discussion in Kista seemed to converge to requiring ECN w=
hen possible (I disticntly remember =E2=80=9Cusing QUIC as a driver for E=
CN deployment=E2=80=9D raised as a reason to do so), but I also don=E2=80=
=99t recall detailed discussion of requirements levels (SHOULD vs MUST); =
there was also a recognition that the state of userland access to ECN bit=
s would be a big obstacle to mandatory deployment.=0D
=0D
(FWIW I=E2=80=99m strongly in favor of =E2=80=9CSHOULD offer/negotiate, u=
nless implementation platform does not support; SHOULD allow config to di=
sable for operational reasons (largely in non-Internet networks using the=
 bits with other semantics a la DCTCP)=E2=80=9D i.e. as MUST as realistic=
ally possible)=0D
=0D
Is there a good reason not to do ECN when the underlying platform support=
s?=0D
=0D
-- =0D
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.=0D
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:=0D
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2156#issuecomment-447252222=

----==_mimepart_5c13697fe41bc_8163fd4becd45c410712ea
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>As I recall the discussion in Kista seemed to converge to requiring EC=
N when possible (I disticntly remember =E2=80=9Cusing QUIC as a driver fo=
r ECN deployment=E2=80=9D raised as a reason to do so), but I also don=E2=
=80=99t 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.</p>=0D
<p>(FWIW I=E2=80=99m strongly in favor of =E2=80=9CSHOULD 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)=E2=80=9D i.e. as MUST as realis=
tically possible)</p>=0D
<p>Is there a good reason not to do ECN when the underlying platform supp=
orts?</p>=0D
=0D
<p style=3D"font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&m=
dash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre=
ad.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href=3D"https://github.com/quic=
wg/base-drafts/issues/2156#issuecomment-447252222">view it on GitHub</a>,=
 or <a href=3D"https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkq-0s=
8iWiM9uN_N5EW6TUXed55Lwiks5u42D_gaJpZM4ZSaOH">mute the thread</a>.<img sr=
c=3D"https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkq8PHp2aYbRCmTH0n0HEq7way=
eBzRks5u42D_gaJpZM4ZSaOH.gif" height=3D"1" width=3D"1" alt=3D"" /></p>=0D=

<script type=3D"application/json" data-scope=3D"inboxmarkup">{"api_versio=
n":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name"=
:"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"=
quicwg/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"http=
s://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avata=
r_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/=
avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/q=
uicwg/base-drafts"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@=
britram in #2156: As I recall the discussion in Kista seemed to converge =
to requiring ECN when possible (I disticntly remember =E2=80=9Cusing QUIC=
 as a driver for ECN deployment=E2=80=9D raised as a reason to do so), bu=
t I also don=E2=80=99t 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.\r\n\=
r\n(FWIW I=E2=80=99m strongly in favor of =E2=80=9CSHOULD 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)=E2=80=9D i.e. as MUST as realis=
tically possible)\r\n\r\nIs there a good reason not to do ECN when the un=
derlying platform supports?"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https=
://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2156#issuecomment-447252222"}}}</=
script>=0D
<script type=3D"application/ld+json">[=0D
{=0D
"@context": "http://schema.org",=0D
"@type": "EmailMessage",=0D
"potentialAction": {=0D
"@type": "ViewAction",=0D
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2156#issuecomment=
-447252222",=0D
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2156#issuecomment-44=
7252222",=0D
"name": "View Issue"=0D
},=0D
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",=0D
"publisher": {=0D
"@type": "Organization",=0D
"name": "GitHub",=0D
"url": "https://github.com"=0D
}=0D
}=0D
]</script>=

----==_mimepart_5c13697fe41bc_8163fd4becd45c410712ea--