-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 204
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Exception in ECN detection when ACK loss happens #1555
Conversation
…/base-drafts into ecn-ack-loss Tag for draft-ietf-quic-transport-13 created by Martin Thomson
draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
Outdated
@@ -1738,6 +1738,14 @@ network, an endpoint verifies the following when an ACK_ECN frame is received: | |||
|
|||
* The increase in ECT(0) and ECT(1) counters MUST be no greater than the number | |||
of packets newly acknowledged that were sent with the corresponding codepoint. | |||
|
|||
* If the increase in the ECT(0), ECT(1) and CE counters are greater than the | |||
number of newly ACKed packets, and received ACK's smallest acknowledged or |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would just say "ACK's smallest acknowledged" and drop "or gap indicated packet number"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implemented.
draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
Outdated
|
||
* If the increase in the ECT(0), ECT(1) and CE counters are greater than the | ||
number of newly ACKed packets, and received ACK's smallest acknowledged or | ||
gap indicated packet number is larger than previously largest acknowledged |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about: "...larger than the previous largest acknowledged, then it's likely acknowledgements were missed, and the above comparison MUST NOT be performed."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implemented
draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
Outdated
@@ -1739,6 +1739,13 @@ network, an endpoint verifies the following when an ACK_ECN frame is received: | |||
* The increase in ECT(0) and ECT(1) counters MUST be no greater than the number | |||
of packets newly acknowledged that were sent with the corresponding codepoint. | |||
|
|||
* If the increase in the ECT(0), ECT(1) and CE counters are greater than the | |||
number of newly ACKed packets, and received ACK's smallest acknowledged is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACKed -> acknowledged
received -> the received
draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
Outdated
then it's likely acknowledgements were missed, and the above comparison | ||
MUST NOT be performed. Instead a new comparision point is stored by the | ||
sender so that only changes after this point will be used in the future | ||
comaparisions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mikkel's right, comaparisons -> comparisons
@@ -1739,6 +1739,14 @@ network, an endpoint verifies the following when an ACK_ECN frame is received: | |||
* The increase in ECT(0) and ECT(1) counters MUST be no greater than the number | |||
of packets newly acknowledged that were sent with the corresponding codepoint. | |||
|
|||
* If the increase in the ECT(0), ECT(1) and CE counters are greater than | |||
the number of newly acknowledged packets, and the received ACK's | |||
smallest acknowledged is larger than the previous largest acknowledged, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I pointed out, this isn't ideal and will lead to ECN being disabled in some cases. I don't know how much we are going to want to worry about that though.
Adding an exception to the ECN detection to handle ACK loss if that occurs.
Fixes Issue #1481