Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of emergency.... set ECN marks (#3454)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson approved this pull request.

I think that this is OK.  I don't know why CI is complaining; I can sort that out though.

> @@ -3485,10 +3485,13 @@ packets on a new path to a peer:
 * 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.
+During the initial deployment of ECN an implementation bug was observed that
+led to black-holing of ECN-marked packet (mostly in home router equipment).
+While this case if unlikely in the Internet today, if this is as a concern for

```suggestion
While this case is unlikely in the Internet today, if this is as a concern for
```

Did you want to cite the study paper here to support this statement?

> @@ -3485,10 +3485,13 @@ packets on a new path to a peer:
 * 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.
+During the initial deployment of ECN an implementation bug was observed that
+led to black-holing of ECN-marked packet (mostly in home router equipment).
+While this case if unlikely in the Internet today, if this is as a concern for
+a certain network, an endpoint could set the ECT(0) codepoint only in, e.g., the

I would strike "for a certain network" 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/3454#pullrequestreview-358632715