Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Gorry's ECN rewrite (#4059)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

A few comments, but this seems to reduce text and is largely useful. Thank you, @gorryfair !

>  
-Erroneous application of ECN marks in the network can result in degraded
-connection performance.  An endpoint that receives an ACK frame with ECN
-counts therefore validates the counts before using them. It performs this
-validation by comparing newly received counts against those from the last
-successfully processed ACK frame. Any increase in ECN counts is validated
-based on the markings that were applied to packets that are newly
-acknowledged in the ACK frame.
+Erroneous application of CE-marks by the network can result in degraded

```suggestion
Erroneous application of ECN-CE markings by the network can result in degraded
```

>  with an ECT(0) marking.  Similarly, ECN validation fails if the sum of the
 increases to ECT(1) and ECN-CE counts is less than the number of newly
 acknowledged packets sent with an ECT(1) marking.  These checks can detect
-removal of ECN markings in the network.
+remarking of ECN CE-markings by the network.

```suggestion
remarking of ECN-CE markings by the network.
```

>  
-If an ACK frame newly acknowledges a packet that the endpoint sent with either
-ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoints set, ECN validation fails if ECN counts are not
-present in the ACK frame.  This check detects a network element that zeroes out
-ECN bits or a peer that is unable to access ECN markings.
+If an ACK frame newly acknowledges a packet that the endpoint sent setting
+either the ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoint, ECN validation fails if the ECN counts

```suggestion
either the ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoint, ECN validation fails if the corresponding ECN counts
```

> +frame.  This is why ECN counts are permitted to be larger than the value
+corresponding to the largest acknowledged packet number.

The old text makes sense to me, but I don't understand this proposed text. What value corresponding to the largest acknowledged PN is this text talking about? 

> +ECN counts.  Coalesced packets (see {{packet-coalesce}}) carry several QUIC
+packets that share the same IP header.  The ECN count for the ECN codepoint

Perhaps "coalesced QUIC packets". Also "ECN counts" (plural, since different PN spaces).

>  with an ECT(0) marking.  Similarly, ECN validation fails if the sum of the
 increases to ECT(1) and ECN-CE counts is less than the number of newly
 acknowledged packets sent with an ECT(1) marking.  These checks can detect
-removal of ECN markings in the network.
+remarking of ECN CE-markings by the network.

"These checks can detect network elements that overwrite ECN-CE markings with an ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoint."

-- 
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/4059#pullrequestreview-478086704