IETF Logo Mail 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

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D16120289 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:51:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jczV0OgAwElg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83E0C120026 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.18.20]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE60C6099A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:51:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1581637889; bh=H859J9KWlSpxllCn0i/yQqfZCNaBhlKSgJ2WBYUhbMw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dcl3IUsLq/kpHKxkoTQYMDXrEJH1ERQPeUDU2bg5G8OaqYAmEO/MxUEtnI4XFBqbP AK9nQPXV4hdacgYJU+BdsUMd7evQ5CgOvQIlbRAZcLnaZgW6evBX4mLe6tKu+HtSQ0 m1K7LXrstL8KAwx6MP6cSsFNkycawj6qcAKYRxTo=
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
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/lLDdU19I8e5mJ46zzLMDUeFzwTY>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 23:51:34 -0000

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

v2.20.0 | Report a Bug | By Email