Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some more explanation on ECN validation (#3767)
mirjak <notifications@github.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 08:42 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 DE4CE3A07A7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.48
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.48 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 u3ucLVw6j9y7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-16.smtp.github.com (out-16.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A765F3A07A5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.57]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A03A12126D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1592383326; bh=8N2airZVF567qQk6n7gk8TQ6aVUhgRj9cFOgU7Nl01M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CzjKlUcb1rFXMejK9aPddjLQ+E3t8dmcFcDnftlvjVqlOCiDC2KqfuViJbXPMZy1B Cm0cCF85iycKVDYGGyYJ84mIBAJCl/iCsaomRbPBvbXFopU9W/PiYLtZ06VI7mSzid Gmf8tte7vUVS/KwW/IZ/yruUQnl4MWHvwJeuBPfg=
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:42:05 -0700
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3BFZJL7IX7NX6MFAN46W4F3EVBNHHCMICKNE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3767/review/432184487@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3767@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3767@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some more explanation on ECN validation (#3767)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ee9d75dc78e0_66a93fae176cd964347657"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/lPJjqn-eXrrt8uGB-Q5m6W2wRRg>
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: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 08:42:08 -0000
@mirjak commented on this pull request. > +use the following steps on receiving an ACK frame to validate ECN. In order to +perform these checks, the endpoint has to remember the values of each ECN Count +from the last ACK frame to calucate the increase since the last ACK. No, this sentence is about remembering the ECN counts in the last ACK frame. The previous sentence was about remembering with marking a packet had when it was sent out. I agree that all this was already implied and clear to me before but given #3733 I tried to make it explicit. -- 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/3767#discussion_r441381144
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Some more explanation on ECN… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some more explanation on… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some more explanation on… mirjak
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some more explanation on… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Some more explanation on… Jana Iyengar