IETF Logo Mail Archive

[quicwg/base-drafts] More strongly recommend ECN marking (#3373)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 21 January 2020 23:58 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 5651D1200C3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:58:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 3PE-qrcds-ZL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:58:24 -0800 (PST)
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 BA8CC120018 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.31]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACFB6A0E48 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:58:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579651104; bh=vl2GASFp2estVIelgPw3lQIU3/0K340ZruHJxcbYgh8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WdQB2s7Ii/LBjjIWxtAASc3IpJmHvNorPqBfcvqNPkemT7iKjJ6lKqbkD5YFxQsE/ JglMh6FwTPg8Z33QB8O2CrWHdFzmMWUMAvPYehRh8ybEQJNaTFEdnMWIsuh5x5FurF uz/TMlXplwme/0GrmbSP34UHuvYj19LQvlBgbYPY=
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:58:24 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5RQDBORDMLUPYCYBF4GTBKBEVBNHHCB6L7OA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3373@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] More strongly recommend ECN marking (#3373)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e27902015c2a_50143feebd2cd96812021d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/Xl8C-Gt6gl810z0pSnWpb2PtSng>
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, 21 Jan 2020 23:58:26 -0000

In #3320, @mirjak suggested that a different algorithm might be better to recommend enabling ECN and only disabling it if a failure is detected.

That algorithm adopts the same posture as the draft: that ECN is optional and that endpoints are permitted to be cautious in enabling it.  If we want to adopt the view that ECN works and endpoints are required to use it unless it breaks, that's a bigger change.

I open this issue, while being aware that this is re-opening something we discussed and agreed previously, without there being new information to present.  Chairs, if you do think we should discuss this, it's a design issue.

-- 
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/3373

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email