Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)

mirjak <> Thu, 08 August 2019 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3985812011B for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kclnZ5Iz54DY for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84D0B120089 for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 02:42:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1565257344; bh=QxBv6yRGw5/F+07roX4MK5vnsx3uUElskQtchAj0k9M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=grzg6DNNqa3nOoB/qiykLeyvi2qNWSJXEpl7mcSJR7AbHBm0DmliJL2poeoEjKiG4 HUtIOPYhJvtKPvDy3XnWmLcJodXkcnVGlj+9v+2WAHnG99/DeVGJX6hAU4FzvMbAFi HaATrccrB+gQhx0bU8FtIZhL3JlIf8vDIDcbA1Xw=
From: mirjak <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2752/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ECN verification text (#2752)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d4bee807bd29_6be73faab9acd96c95413"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 09:42:27 -0000

mirjak commented on this pull request.

> -reduced throughput or other undesirable side-effects.  To reduce this risk, an
-endpoint uses the following steps to verify the counts it receives in an ACK
+To start ECN validation, an endpoint SHOULD do the following when sending
+packets on a new path to a peer:
+* Set the ECT(0) codepoint in the IP header of early outgoing packets sent on a
+  new path to the peer {{!RFC8311}}.
+* 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.  Implementations MAY experiment with and use other strategies.  An

I don't think normative language is needed here.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: