Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explicit support for on-path calculation of loss and congestion of QUIC flows (#632)

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

So it turns out I actually agree with Lars here: loss, in and of itself, is a relatively useless metric without other things to correlate with. Requiring ECN negotiation for QUIC would actually do more for the (long-term) measurability of the protocol than mandating loss exposure, in part because future QUICs may have different transmission schedulers which would react differently to loss. The question is how useful CE mark based measurement will be in the intermediate term, as we transition from relatively little marking on path to "some" marking on path.

More useful would be a generalization of the ConEx mechanism, which could certainly go into a debug header, and would allow a single point to get information about CE markings (as well as loss) both on the upstream and the downstream. Would need to look into whether any TCP-centric assumptions were built into that mechanism.

-- 
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/632#issuecomment-309680807