Skip to content
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

Simplify receiver verification of ECN counters #1565

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 17, 2018
Merged

Simplify receiver verification of ECN counters #1565

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 17, 2018

Conversation

janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

This mechanism modifies the response proposed in #1555. It isn't perfect, but it's straightforward, and addresses the fragility problem adequately I think.

Fixes #1481.

@janaiyengar janaiyengar requested a review from gloinul July 14, 2018 21:26
ACK_ECN frame.

* The increase in ECT(0) and ECT(1) counters MUST be no greater than the number
* The increase in ECT(0) and ECT(1) counters MUST be no lesser than the number
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"no lesser" isn't a turn of phrase I'm comfortable with. "MUST be at least the number of newly acknowledged packets"

sender so that only changes after this point will be used in the future
comparisons.
* The total increase in ECT(0), ECT(1), and CE counters reported in the ACK_ECN
frame MUST be no lesser than the total number of packets newly acknowledged in
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto

Copy link
Contributor

@ianswett ianswett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lg, minus Martin's comments about "no lesser"

Copy link
Contributor

@gloinul gloinul left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is okay given that the "no lesser" is addressed.

@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've taken in the suggestion. Merging.

@janaiyengar janaiyengar merged commit e45c143 into master Jul 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants