IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Text on ECN probing (#3585)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 08:33 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 287D23A0CE8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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] 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 Tf17210jyNfQ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D44BC3A0CEB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-bb778fb.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-bb778fb.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.102.56]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC19282A6C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590741225; bh=33TNQpZ0G0kyml1qd4kGY7ynNrPq5n8l5GF5DvPhPKo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=m63r3hcKbnJUoxcta6gKZ9j6vC/mLyGwkEEv5i50xfkUCyWSETY2EESJuk8ZJtegv smux9dxnw8EtbzEJzcyMy3hZw6YVH8DUUAj4yJpy3tgoP+MrWiPqbPDrd9LGUTkpGd FjKA9VPdzWGWzsM1DgALbpvTOrmPDK62ydsphj7s=
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 01:33:45 -0700
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6CVLQL3A2Y3LJAA4V43SU6TEVBNHHCHVTIIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585/635847287@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Text on ECN probing (#3585)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ed0c8e9bd859_52c83fa353acd95c156726"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/FDg1e8lUqIMxmO4ZtpfmWLaVHSE>
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: Fri, 29 May 2020 08:33:48 -0000

So far I didnt really see this issuing being coined in terms of "guidance for conservative ECN use risks low uptake of the ECN feature". If that is the core issue, then an example of overwhelming information is to see support for addressing the issue from a number of QUIC implementations that do not support ECN, and have chosen to do so because of this guidance. 

Since the other text around ECN seems to require per-packet-space counts, and other parts of QUIC require RTT measurement, I'm finding it difficult to see how this is a burdensome thing to implement. But I can only speak to my implementation and experience. 

-- 
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/3585#issuecomment-635847287

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email