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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

So I think there might be a point to indicate the current state of affairs when it comes to black holing better. However, it doesn't really change the need for validation as the main issue to check for is actually that the receiver is capable of receiving the ECN bits which has a much higher risk of not being true. I would even argue that the reason for stop sending ECT after a sufficient number of packets that some should make it is to avoid getting an unfair advantage until you know that the code points are read and that you will get an CE mark if it occurs. So maybe the text should be changed to focus on this aspect? 

Even if the proposed PR is rejected there need to be a change to this sentence: 

"To reduce the chances of misinterpreting congestive loss as packets dropped by a faulty network element, an endpoint could set the ECT(0) codepoint in the first ten outgoing packets on a path, or for a period of three RTTs, whichever occurs first."

There is a missing "only" or something else to indicate that you are sending ECN for a while then going back to not-ECT until validation has occurred. 

-- 
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-624517296