Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Gorry's ECN rewrite (#4059)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.



>  
-Coalesced packets (see {{packet-coalesce}}) mean that several packets can share
-the same IP header.  The ECN counts for the ECN codepoint received in the
-associated IP header are incremented once for each QUIC packet, not per
-enclosing IP packet or UDP datagram.
+On receiving a QUIC packet with an ECT(0), ECT(1) or CE codepoint, an
+ECN-enabled endpoint accesses the ECN codepoint from the enclosing IP packet and
+increases the corresponding ECT(0), ECT(1), or CE count, These ECN counts are

```suggestion
increases the corresponding ECT(0), ECT(1), or CE count. These ECN counts are
```

>  
 
 ### ECN Counts
 
-On receiving a QUIC packet with an ECT or CE codepoint, an ECN-enabled endpoint
-that can access the ECN codepoints from the enclosing IP packet increases the
-corresponding ECT(0), ECT(1), or CE count, and includes these counts in
-subsequent ACK frames; see {{generating-acks}} and {{frame-ack}}.
-
-An IP packet that results in no QUIC packets being processed does not increase
-ECN counts.  A QUIC packet detected by a receiver as a duplicate does not
-affect the receiver's local ECN codepoint counts; see {{security-ecn}} for
-relevant security concerns.
+Use of ECN requires the receiving endpoint to read the ECN codepoint from an IP

This section is about feedback only, so I think that it is OK to only talk about reading the markings.

>  
-### ECN Validation {#ecn-validation}
+For example, if one each of an Initial, 0-RTT, Handshake, and 1-RTT QUIC packet

That's true, except that this invalidates the other part of this paragraph...  This needs more thought.

> +An endpoint thus attempts to use ECN and validates this for each new connection,
+when switching to a server's preferred address, and on active connection
+migration to a new path.  {{ecn-alg}} describes one possible algorithm.

I don't want to say negotiates.  And I'm not sure that we need the extreme economy you propose otherwise.

> +an ACK frame. This is why ECN counts are permitted to be larger than the value
+corresponding to the largest acknowledged packet number.

How about:

```suggestion
an ACK frame. This is why ECN counts are permitted to be larger than the total
number of packets that are acknowledged.
```
I don't think we need to say "packet number space" again here.

-- 
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/pull/4059#pullrequestreview-485649924