Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation check and lost acknowledgments (#3778)
Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 19 June 2020 04:21 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 05D8B3A0D24 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.552 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 M7LMFrs1_b1I for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-12.smtp.github.com (out-12.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ED2D3A1273 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:38 -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 D2CAB12123A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1592540497; bh=8rka+PlLnWct+TAznL4aPN3ayHi7kBdEiSUYU5Ra25E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wtvxZ76RSFhmN1bevsXz8LJh0GWKC/+e7IKuUtA5kYKPFO303BrxhEaxVx2EAPJae U7Fahb0/smNKjejFfNN14hxLgHV73sDJV30VgM6pM/wRdC2b5DK7YNMEYArOciKs5q xne5FUt/AIyOXS7unhSlnj2Q75DUK42R0mOWU/mg=
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:21:37 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5QAG7TNLPXIVPSKPN47APFDEVBNHHCMNBG7Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3778/646426595@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3778@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3778@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation check and lost acknowledgments (#3778)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eec3d518dd5e_5cfe3fcfd70cd96013834f3"; 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/cPlMi4xymkYE9OCE-Te434rAuWc>
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, 19 Jun 2020 04:21:57 -0000
That's how I read the third validation check: ``` 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). ``` but I agree it's not very clear. I _think_ the intent was to do the minimal version you suggest above (which is why it's "either" instead of "both" in the text). I would be happy with us clarifying the text to say that more clearly. -- 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/3778#issuecomment-646426595
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation check a… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Martin Thomson