Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Revalidation for ECN (#4037)

mirjak <> Thu, 20 August 2020 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DA43A08DB for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 04:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 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_32=0.001, 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 4bP-dLlcAMAh for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 04:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CA93A08DC for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 04:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEFB340D80 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 04:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1597921203; bh=kpQNLql/e76JtGy2Q3ukqAOkl3CCWD0jyCJbOxa4k1k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0yxhZsk21+v/Xk1zIWyrSBMqzixKbV/rTFd8XGXyQyEQ45vMsAdGszlDqext9XadP bMXjCrMqTpRBwyQInhTUVZTO8/hyGtSEyujiFBlq4kDJ6QPRFEECanOrq+86UezYPJ P1KeiIysZDThhfN1uLuTKS5EOkcdw/BRx4pwKNTM=
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 04:00:03 -0700
From: mirjak <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4037/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Revalidation for ECN (#4037)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3e57b3ada97_14519641290547"; 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: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:00:06 -0000

@mirjak commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3892,6 +3889,7 @@ errors are detected.
 Endpoints validate ECN for packets sent on each network path independently.  An
 endpoint thus validates ECN on new connection establishment, when switching to a
 server's preferred address, and on active connection migration to a new path.
+If validation fails, an endpoint could also periodically attempt validation.

An endpoint receiving CE marks should always feed them back to the sender. Validation is about actively marking packets as ECT by the sender. However, I think it would be nice to be more explicit and add a reference to the respective section at least.

> @@ -3843,11 +3843,8 @@ instead of dropping it.  Endpoints react to congestion by reducing their sending
 rate in response, as described in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}.
 To use ECN, QUIC endpoints first determine whether a path supports ECN marking
-and the peer is able to access the ECN codepoint in the IP header.  A network
-path does not support ECN if ECN marked packets get dropped or ECN markings are
-rewritten on the path. An endpoint validates the use of ECN on the path, both
-during connection establishment and when migrating to a new path
+and the peer is able to access the ECN codepoint in the IP header; see

I'm also in favour or keep this text here. It's a bit of redundant but I think it's useful to make this clear from the beginning.

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