Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] An example ECN validation algorithm (#3320)

mirjak <> Thu, 09 January 2020 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DFA12011E for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 02:22:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wK9xD5meAf3E for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 02:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8936120113 for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 02:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 02:21:58 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578565318; bh=f1Wy9vDOAJrjHKnq0DmmMhiWhZt0H3bNEq5MkFxkT64=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=uOx6IUd7ih6m6Vcv7IKy9X9iPQu3CLIhjZXuO0giVe0FXJmsKGk+OaGRPZ79yFeDr FW/KJX4udrZrsQ9O24ZJWzfjXsc0qJ/WCnWuOkjtj0pvfNCoyL/8oy94oA0DbhYxq8 mxUeG1GT05jAtxrv/0mU+hC4Ie5FjPPZnUlQJcKE=
From: mirjak <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3320/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] An example ECN validation algorithm (#3320)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e16fec6c9fd4_5f773f9658acd9644688a1"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 10:22:02 -0000

mirjak commented on this pull request.

> +
+The testing period runs for a number of packets or round trip times as
+determined by the endpoint.  During this time, packets sent are marked with
+ECT(0).  The goal is to limit the duration of the testing period, but to ensure
+that enough marked packets are sent that it is likely that ECN counts will
+provide a clear indication of how the path treats marked packets.
+<!-- Do we need a more concrete recommendation here?  For instance, I might say
+"Endpoints could test with packets that amount to between 1 to 2 times the
+initial congestion window over a period between 1 to 2 times the estimated RTT."
+After the testing period ends, the ECN state for the path becomes "unknown".
+From the "unknown" state, successful validation of the ECN counts an ACK frame
+(see {{ecn-ack}}) causes the ECN state for the path to become "capable", unless
+no marked packet has been acknowledged.

My thinking was that if you get an PTO in testing to go straight to failed and don't sent any ECT markings anymore.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: