[tcpm] Sender Fallback in draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-14

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

I have questions on the sender fallback in use of ECT(?) - not because I 
do not agree with the method, I think the approach is good. However, the 
method here is something that impacts the sender CC method, not the 
feedback method. Maybe this was discussed before - if so remind me - my 
questions relate to this:

/Once a Data Sender has entered AccECN mode it SHOULD check whether
    all feedback received for the first three or four rounds indicated
    that every packet it sent was CE-marked.  If so, for the remainder of
    the connection, the Data Sender SHOULD NOT send ECN-capable packets,
    but it MUST continue to feed back any ECN markings on arriving 
packets./

(i) I’m pretty sure this is safe to wait for /the remainder of the 
connection/. Is this possibly unnecessarily restrictive - without 
explaining why, in that some connections are long-lived and do 
experience path changes?

- At least I would like some text about path changes to path that would 
support AccECN, and what happens.

(ii) This isn’t really about AccECN at all, it’s about guidance on the 
use of ECT(?) by a TCP sender's CC .

I think this is intended here *only* is to apply to TCP senders, and I 
think that needs to be made clear? - Although it might also be valuable 
(non-normative?) advice for other transports that also have a similar 
way of reporting CE?

- To me is something that needs to be more explicit, and probably in a 
separate sub-section or something?

Gorry