Re: [tsvwg] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)

Jonathan Morton <> Fri, 13 March 2020 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95513A0F56 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iyM29Z5c_iDE for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3F8C3A0F3C for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b13so8512763lfb.12 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=185hAU5QG26vfOWEG8LYM2SLDoe6WnVgwGqc4et+IXI=; b=Bxj63dzVk2TCz/UiZIgBG/0Gs0a+Vs2sKF95EXeNk0fz/Q9+q+PCv/NjbymqT3N1wc YhmrkQ/RfpfiSttbNtrrbSRY2K9mPP2JW42nqAgVRBofvMIjB4AdLIJuS47p2PmL2Rcy yq3Pp8QK1RQVQa1U+OcawAYePlcrQLyemuSBtL0AfBFhCY5sp1w77LWdubwW8lrAi0J0 qtgjoQLNfIOhHbKXPArhaWYEdGy66n8ix2XNbwIE+xDXBSDG4UekvNyaIn0uzNZpGw1d keIxFuLQ3CSSPA3mlTfAyoisAiHlQ1hog/QPaYhmJdH2wmUfFCFFjcRR5GXooEb/MseE p/Hg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=185hAU5QG26vfOWEG8LYM2SLDoe6WnVgwGqc4et+IXI=; b=BBT2SdNWGW09F7zs8gZrE63f0glW5l7CFpOV8kcX5riwsocLjBktN2vFDKdzDsBEZu 1u+fkuuQD4nVz9Tif6FyZbOkP0ebmoaaDD8VA1WdLFj7MNlTAoD8R+d0NyKzS2+ZyDPk JXdm1KFYQER7jfS6SdT8QK4DQhrUUucTGBw47rw15G0ASK7x7JpyXfc+e4fy2S2TL7Za 4EhZw1MPbnuntdOS+yqVMSrtZrf4TM4NJf2wxIKnwhjedkPNuvznaUjksEVqY+Orh2CV r0rIYsfUaBySx83asCiCyspgLAKTGG6BEE0fmNhGRp2u5PxSc3buzygnanrUc7YA/l9N CPzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0ZevHxmmmXzQqhw40QXE6Uq5B0OIgD+BqdK+hofISQesJ5gGjv OGQNlEEPfxK2uzSX9JRDKY8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtUMUmRCChtQMqlKNDZR2u7edfpM8LorRZViC5MDrOa7rbRFpLRHmaWlR3hW2ndNaJQCgJ0qQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:53a3:: with SMTP id j3mr8911091lfh.143.1584120201726; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x62sm16938238lff.58.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:23:06 +0200
Cc: "Black, David" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Bob Briscoe <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:23:35 -0000

> On 13 Mar, 2020, at 6:42 pm, Bob Briscoe <> wrote:
>> What am I missing from the context of your objections?

> Well, I don't know, 'cos I don't know how you came to that interpretation (you'll need to point to the sentence that made you think that, if it's still not clear).

I'm referring specifically to your claim that the existing specifications can result in a doubling of CE marks in the reassembled and decapsulated packets, relative to the number present in the encapsulated, fragmented packets arriving at the decapsulator.  I cannot at present identify any mechanism which permits this to occur, but it seems to form the basis of your justification for modified language.

So *one* of us has clearly misread the specs in question.  I just want to figure out which of us it is.  You could do so by quoting chapter and verse for such a mechanism, and we can work from there.

 - Jonathan Morton