IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 06:14 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 A04C23A08EA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 23:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, 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 5M6MlYGddX1i for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 23:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26AB03A090C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 23:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.110.15]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77246A0E6A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 23:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590732843; bh=V/19pgE+gaqw0VC1iNSOG/xbbvNytW5ITc0mazhCrvk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=feCq9CC7sbhslL9MWW2J8+X3JFoQuUh6rKg9b2f3VU2Qjss2K2rr51bXBhVxRxb41 wDEbsgUPEU8t5KYC1eVYQbr60rWZvecUGtugArPI2eMDXNcbxArcOJbvh+euAOx/93 bj0kH8btz1wVOXOddy+4XgH3FUX1YvlGMqtL9T4Q=
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 23:14:03 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7H4IU7YK5LEBUBTSN43SESXEVBNHHCHVTIIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585/635781710@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_5ed0a82bd8336_5b0d3f7ee44cd964174510"; 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/VDZYCvJgid6y8MmCNX3NpxBuM0c>
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 06:14:14 -0000

@mirjak: I don't understand the pushback.  As @LPardue notes, if no faulty network elements exist, the mechanism should work just fine. 

I think the crux of the disagreement might be that the text suggests that the default stance is test and then use, where perhaps you are arguing for use and fall back. I honestly don't think it makes much of a difference, and in the absence of _overwhelming information_ we need to be taking the conservative stance on this spec.

-- 
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-635781710

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email