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

Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com> Wed, 06 May 2020 08:40 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 A88A43A005B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 01:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.483 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 Mp-dHch5M90p for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 01:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 296C13A003D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 01:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.92]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133DC520CBA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 01:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588754408; bh=BEG5mXiH0ZUA2eOYbk/XtGulKKhh2GQ4kyCi4IT2LFk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TUUT9McUSf57JJOCb2p2zBdA2NfD7d63AJwQy4FbxA3RxOl5Z4MaHv2TSDL35oTfl d099usNk6TDWRlLptfe8crP0w/iZVFE6lJVjsDKGv1Ycd+RF7r2JcjsBS8Q0B8rrNL XRHIcYysvr8h50v4PyMwkkupBjD3YtumBJlIzMOY=
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 01:40:08 -0700
From: Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZA4SHX2MC5ANXH47F4XZMOREVBNHHCHVTIIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585/624517296@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Text on ECN probing (#3585)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eb277e82950_2a2f3fe4abacd968138358c"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gloinul
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/f5dXwQNMUA0V15-OxR4juJ-Nkdw>
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: Wed, 06 May 2020 08:40:11 -0000

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