Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)

[mirjak <[e-mail]>]

mirjak commented on this pull request.



> -reduced throughput or other undesirable side-effects.  To reduce this risk, an
-endpoint uses the following steps to verify the counts it receives in an ACK
-frame.
+To start ECN validation, an endpoint SHOULD do the following when sending
+packets on a new path to a peer:
+
+* Set the ECT(0) codepoint in the IP header of early outgoing packets sent on a
+  new path to the peer {{!RFC8311}}.
+
+* If all packets that were sent with the ECT(0) codepoint are eventually deemed
+  lost {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, validation is deemed to have failed.
+
+To reduce the chances of misinterpreting congestive loss as packets dropped by a
+faulty network element, an endpoint could set the ECT(0) codepoint in the first
+ten outgoing packets on a path, or for a period of three RTTs, whichever occurs
+first.  Implementations MAY experiment with and use other strategies.  An

RFC8311 says: "Protocols and senders MUST NOT use the ECT(1)
      codepoint to indicate ECT unless otherwise specified by an
      Experimental RFC in the IETF document stream."
So I don't think we should talk about use of ECT(1) without a pointer to RFC8311.

However, for this sentence I still don't see why normative language is needed.

And If think if we want to say something about ECT(1) we should rather say something like: "ECT(1) is reserved for experiments by RFC8311. If such an experiment is implemented, the described validation methods might apply as well to ETC(1)." However, that actually doesn't say much...

-- 
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/2752#discussion_r312115463