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

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 13:49 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 133853A0ADA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_H2=-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 lvjjKyfXyoTl for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B50E93A0AD8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177ED962231 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590587366; bh=8uHrXSFLvADFjygbQ7EHHJHIN6Hk3g4NXfeK+fjObkw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=agddELdOTLJkIV1xXA/201fAoMvu9ZxF5R7W63qzB4O5Ryw2meKTzljTBhZCWLz70 pSLbsB87sbFaMYI2XpsT6vFJmUG9O+vHHyXYvUW/yQZcrguS2E5K20S8DhsgkhvkJk Rl8HE4GLTN6QEMmrkLm5RcMbmTrvWtHva/E+5VDI=
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 06:49:26 -0700
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3C2YSX2C5TCAIZKGF43JIONEVBNHHCHVTIIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585/634673693@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3585@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Text on ECN probing (#3585)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ece6fe671c4_6b053fd2b3acd96898866"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/z_DNtiGtsWk8XZfgq3Na2M2lVTU>
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, 27 May 2020 13:49:28 -0000

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