Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve ACK_ECN frame encoding (e.g., use bit-vector) (#1439)

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

@kazuho Yes, now we are getting to proposals that appear to be working from my perspective. I think the one bit proposal is actually quite interesting, but I think there need to be feedback from people who better understand L4S and any other proposals for using ECT(1). 

Why I say I think it is workable is that if the assumption holds that a packet sender will mark with only one of the ECT codepoints. And the use of ECT(1) and the response function is negotiated, likely in Transport Parameters then we don't usually need to care about which ECT codepoint it was. The only thing that likely should be there is that if a receiver sees a packet being remarked from the assumed ECT(1) to ECT(0) for example then it could report that remarking using the ACK frame, i.e. make it equivalent to a bleaching to Not-ECT to indicate that change and thus likely result in ECN being turned off due to the bleaching occurring. 

However, I would really prefer if we can get #1372 landed first, then draft a detailed proposal for the change, so that anyone can clearly evaluate the pro and cons of the change. 

-- 
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/1439#issuecomment-398344097