Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation check and lost acknowledgments (#3778)
Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Thu, 18 June 2020 21:25 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 746FC3A0FB2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.445
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.445 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, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 MuY17FL29J2E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58D13A0F99 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-fa7043e.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fa7043e.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.109.45]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8178660093 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1592515532; bh=2j5G8PSi9akR56H6TPHdNnO2RB/R6zfx+CSuNf0s760=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DaQfYEET/LUvft1oIkNtmBAjW+BaHJQIlHrRrBGBdmL7bQ4QGLLIgiXIBHPvjNARh L4ZYTqVQB17ISr2xEVcO8r5F+8lxdLm2hFN53A6PpyHLUsF33B/jy5ePVTX0y0wYj+ /zgVN12HH9moZvDP5W4Iekr2KEFV0Ivfp0aDPveY=
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:25:32 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4QMTIMTGKWRXFI6J54666MZEVBNHHCMNBG7Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3778/646313632@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3778@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3778@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation check and lost acknowledgments (#3778)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eebdbccd91e4_b543fb4128cd95c3722ca"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/meGOndp6k4wuy8M6NhF3zwg1n3o>
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, 18 Jun 2020 21:25:36 -0000
I'm not convinced this needs fixing. ``` But that allowance only applies to the validation performed on the sum of ECT(0), ECT(1) and ECN-CE counts. The validation for cross-marking of ECT(0) to ECT(1) or vice versa does not include this same protection. Thus, failure to acknowledge a packet will probably result in ECN validation failing. ``` It is an exceedingly rare corner case, since this requires an ACK for a packet to not be sent or received, and then for there to be cross-marking within that fraction of connections. And in this case, ECN validation fails and is turned off. We knew corner cases existed, but we also had the escape hatch of turning off ECN when things were not "quite right". Why is that answer not good enough any more? (Or am I missing something?) -- 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/issues/3778#issuecomment-646313632
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation check a… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Third ECN validation che… Martin Thomson