Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial fixes to ECN text (#2189)

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

gloinul commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3031,33 +3031,28 @@ an ACK frame without ECN feedback, the endpoint stops setting ECT codepoints in
 subsequent IP packets, with the expectation that either the network path or the
 peer no longer supports ECN.
 
-To reduce the risk of non-standard compliant ECN markings affecting the
-operation of an endpoint, an endpoint verifies the counts it receives when it
-receives new acknowledgements:
+Network devices that corrupt or apply non-standard ECN markings might result in
+reduced throughput or other undesirable side-effects.  To reduce this risk, an
+endpoint uses the following steps to verify the counts it receives in an ACK
+frame.  Note that the counts MUST NOT be verified if the ACK frame does not

To avoid all issues let us check so that the ACK frames are not reordered. For example rewrite this check to: "Counts MUST NOT be verified if the ACK frame arrived in an QUIC packet whose packet number is not the highest received so far." 

>  
-* The increase in ECT(0) and ECT(1) counters MUST be at least the number of QUIC
-  packets newly acknowledged that were sent with the corresponding codepoint
-  minus the increase in the CE counter. This detects network remarking between
-  ECT(0) and ECT(1).
-
-* The total increase in ECT(0), ECT(1), and CE counters reported in the ACK
-  frame MUST be at least the total number of QUIC packets newly acknowledged in
-  this ACK frame. This detects if the network changes ECT(0), ECT(1) or CE to
+* The total increase in ECT(0), ECT(1), and CE counts MUST be no smaller than
+  the total number of QUIC packets newly acknowledged in this ACK frame.  This

I suggest that you add the below (new after "frame").
"... in this ACK frame that was marked as ECT."
The reasons is that if a sender for some reason don't mark all packets, which is not required they need to check what was sent. 

-- 
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/2189#pullrequestreview-185578251