Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)

mirjak <> Tue, 13 August 2019 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D091200D6 for <>; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 R1CpybN09DC8 for <>; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0453F12008C for <>; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:01:33 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1565686893; bh=5Wet+nJpYw/3QNHjn0cpEzIhoOfet2obF1v9Pb7AkyI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=twJOpcfCI0yZTPt8h1ptDmZEsEOvu7/rnxo3HeOzRp/dQeADVqtC92aM8+GsHhys+ V6oT6JFVWbF5hZ4e4bui+x74FYKFiTw1vtDUZHkvVlUXyHhOOzAAM9OpjSFyOi14Yk oVt8R4ELd+TQxTwVz33uVnuihkYA3eATKxylAbAI=
From: mirjak <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d527c6d18cb4_748a3feee78cd9603351f"; 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: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:01:36 -0000

mirjak commented on this pull request.

> +
+* If all packets that were sent with the ECT(0) codepoint are eventually deemed
+  lost {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, validation is deemed to have failed.
+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.  Alternate strategies are possible.  For example, an endpoint could send
+the first ten packets interleaved: five ECT(0)-marked packets interleaved with
+five unmarked packets.  This allows the endpoint to more clearly identify
+congestive loss as such.  Implementations MAY experiment with and use other
+#### Receiving ACK Frames
+An endpoint that sets ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoints on packets it transmits MUST

Thanks! That's fine now. Did just reply to Martin's mail. I agree that here it should mention both codepoints.

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