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

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Thu, 08 August 2019 01:48 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 ECF08120232 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 2MuGzVwRfkxf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82914120033 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A5B2C0E97 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:48:18 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZWDJPO7DZFN2LXOQN3LCY6FEVBNHHBVKABIA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752/review/272305004@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d4b7f62a9a29_7dc03f7f28acd9601484c0"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/TDV643_9zt6jQq9xo9ki3lorN2c>
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 01:48:22 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

comments incorporated. @martinthomson: I've changed the reordering heuristic to be about largest acked as we've previously discussed, and I think I have it right. PTAL.

> +
+* 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.  Alternate strategies are possible.  For example, an endpoint could send
+the first ten packets interleaved: five ECT(0)-marked packets interleaved with
+five unmarked packets.  This allows the endpoint to more clearly identify
+congestive loss as such.  Implementations MAY experiment with and use other
+strategies.
+
+#### Receiving ACK Frames
+
+An endpoint that sets ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoints on packets it transmits MUST

Added some mentions of it above

> -setting ECT codepoints in subsequent packets.  Doing so allows the connection to
-be resilient to network elements that corrupt ECN codepoints in the IP header or
-drop packets with ECT or CE codepoints in the IP header.
+#### Validation Outcomes
+
+If validation fails, then the endpoint stops sending ECN markings in subsequent
+IP packets with the expectation that either the network path or the peer does
+not support ECN.
+
+Upon successful validation, an endpoint can continue to set ECT codepoints in
+subsequent packets with the expectation that the path is ECN-capable.  Network
+routing and path elements can change mid-connection however; an endpoint MUST
+disable ECN if validation fails at any point in the connection.
+
+Even if validation fails, an endpoint MAY re-validate ECN on the same path to
+the peer at any later time in the connection.

That's already said above in the 2nd para of the "ECN validation" section. The point of this sentence here is that validation failure does not mean an endpoint can't try again for this path.

> +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.  Alternate strategies are possible.  For example, an endpoint could send
+the first ten packets interleaved: five ECT(0)-marked packets interleaved with
+five unmarked packets.  This allows the endpoint to more clearly identify
+congestive loss as such.  Implementations MAY experiment with and use other

done, done, and done.

>  
 * Any increase in either ECT(0) or ECT(1) counts, plus any increase in the CE
   count, MUST be no smaller than the number of packets sent with the
   corresponding ECT codepoint that are newly acknowledged in this ACK frame.
   This step detects any erroneous network remarking from ECT(0) to ECT(1) (or
   vice versa).
 
+Processing counts out of order can result in validation failure.  An endpoint
+SHOULD NOT perform this validation if the ACK frame is received in a packet with
+packet number lower than a previously received ACK frame.  Validating based on

I think I have it now, PTAL.

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-272305004