Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Text on ECN probing (#3585)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense.

As someone not familiar with ECN and just reading the specification, I'm struggling to see what the crux of the issue is. And I would hypothesise that this is a contributing factor to it getting stalled. 

As an inexperienced implementer I find the current text a bit weak but I'm not sure more context helps me.

If I were to distil it down I'd take the current text:

>   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.

and simply editorialize it to

> ECN-marked packets might be dropped by a faulty network element. To reduce the chances of confusing this with congestive loss of packets, an endpoint could set the ECT(0) codepoint for only the first ten outgoing packets on a path, or for a period of three RTTs, whichever occurs first.



-- 
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/3585#issuecomment-634673693