Archive

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

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 13 February 2020 23:51 UTC

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:51:29 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3G753E6LXWDBWNOK54KMJYDEVBNHHCDKKNEA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3454/review/358632715@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3454@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3454@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of emergency.... set ECN marks (#3454)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e45e101ac24e_5aa63fd556ecd964768b2"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/lLDdU19I8e5mJ46zzLMDUeFzwTY>

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

[quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of emer… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … Jana Iyengar
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … Lucas Pardue
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … Gorry Fairhurst
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] In an unlikely event of … Martin Thomson