From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F286B3B29E for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 0362WocJ085284; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 19:32:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 0362WoUc085283; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 19:32:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-Id: <202004060232.0362WoUc085283@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: To: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 19:32:50 -0700 (PDT) CC: ECN-Sane , oliver.hohlfeld@b-tu.de X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] tcp options processing - must should, don't care X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 02:33:10 -0000 > doesn't look like the ecn related bits were tested. > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.05400.pdf > My guess would be because of "set of minimum TCP requirements that any TCP speaker MUST implement." Thus they did NOT look at IP, nor did they look at SHOULD. Now with that said it would make a good paper to do the same type of investigation for IP and as well extend the coverage to SHOULD. > Dave T?ht -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org