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

mirjak <> Wed, 20 May 2020 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7843A0944 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 05:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wPsQ9_Tr57Jh for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 05:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60A423A093D for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 05:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E75B2C0A6C for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 05:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1589978084; bh=T1kCglodldiKunNMGNRIlIWXsVcqZ+m7w0U3MoY/EkM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AHUeizGua1nFeNX+SOOZuPJMeryHV6PESRpRuY2lODzChPOmA6Qf0S8tssCrwQp2O Gb+lCH26PkF16SPt+F5R9XV/SafkDIPVzudOgaLRq73rwkOTCe35Y+mZNU+GK2DFmU IKbzRvT+Dd+TlBvm3HxK6TZcWzv5M6vylbd1bBps=
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 05:34:44 -0700
From: mirjak <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Text on ECN probing (#3585)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ec523e47ebf1_68ce3f9ab48cd9603875f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mirjak
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:34:49 -0000

@gloinul the validation mechanism itself is there to stop marking packets as ETC when you don't get feedback for any reason. So that's already covered in the text. For this part of the text the question is if you should set all packet as ETC until validation fails or if there are additional risk which justifies a more complicated scheme where only some of the packets in the validation phase are marked as ECT.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: