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

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 January 2020 13:48 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 BBF191200DB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:48:01 -0800 (PST)
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 0NfygD5oV0eg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196C61200CE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:47:54 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579009674; bh=l/g2sqILDIIRA2qDGQcih7534VRpwuelGdjj5sqLxQc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=kQP0XxY7wyWpKd0VBVgL6+YsB6N5kV7vXVupfB7v8we+lCi9Qh21e+bRDYVHx2dfN /R0VbuVNTLtlCfJYbCvje1KHZJqSvNdQ3llmc7xAPFjkV7CJgY6+ANCGsHyIlthTGv F4m8ATPRErmdlVpTv+f0f4lh1bDiqpKyulSF2CQk=
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7XQXCP3NRYZEKTGU54FL4QVEVBNHHCBC7C3M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3320/review/342541710@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3320@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3320@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] An example ECN validation algorithm (#3320)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e1dc68a5ae32_69853ff87aecd9686511a"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/RYi1XjFKFGUJxQzbN52oy1bDy8c>
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, 14 Jan 2020 13:48:02 -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.

I think the idea would be to only have three states: "Unknown/testing" and "capable" where ETC marking is enabled, "failed" where ECT marking is disabled and you stay in "unknown/testing" until the path has be validate for failed. 

-- 
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/3320#discussion_r366346120