Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add note about stale ACK frames breaking ECN (#2879)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 09:00 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 9D6FB1203B3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 w5oKy1IdaF51 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5032A12010C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 02:00:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1562662844; bh=otGfqYL00f1YDJ0qsJ3rNRlEwx0JRKhZx3i6URDpyFI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0xVlPowz/RUG6gTR8FhDZKmee91p2/XFEphy99X1VwEesUgWrGzs+yrj68H+vedXp 5B0OKCcBrLAIB/O8ppIVT1zGNVKzGIwAyEBERPFjo223RyFzWAcfQ0ly4AW+u8UAPI 1cOaTpT29gbIYGa0cewv5ng40kL2PFu10JhqzyS4=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3ALRW3ILBSFLYNSA53GGFDZEVBNHHBXP7DOI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2879/review/259362486@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2879@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2879@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add note about stale ACK frames breaking ECN (#2879)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d2457bc2b1d8_69863f87958cd9603204248"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/MdRPfYh-9QpFAI8tB3PtQm6fFlI>
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, 09 Jul 2019 09:00:48 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3154,11 +3154,13 @@ to be greater than the number of packets acknowledged in an ACK frame.  When
 this happens, and if verification succeeds, the local reference counts MUST be
 increased to match the counts in the ACK frame.
 
-Processing counts out of order can result in verification failure.  An endpoint
-SHOULD NOT perform this verification if the ACK frame is received in a packet
-with packet number lower than a previously received ACK frame.  Verifying based
-on ACK frames that arrive out of order can result in disabling ECN
-unnecessarily.
+Processing counts out of order can result in verification failure.  This can
+happen when packets containing ACK frames are reordered in the network, or if a
+sender retransmits an ACK frame with stale information.  An endpoint SHOULD NOT
+perform this verification if the ACK frame is received in a packet with packet
+number lower than a previously received ACK frame or if the ACK frame does not
+acknowledge any new packets. ACK frames that arrive out of order can result in

Remember that asynchronous senders cannot always coordinate counters exactly. So process A uses some packet numbers, process B user some others, interleaved. you cannot be sure acks are exactly in sync, only approximately so. If the receiver looks at largest acked rather than packet numbers I think it should be ok.

-- 
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/pull/2879#discussion_r301473963