PQ Crypta Logo

quico — Path marking packets CE, not just ECT(0)

The client does not do this, and said so itself — by what it advertised, or by refusing outright. A definite answer about the client, not a failure and not a gap.

PQ CRYPTA PLATFORM

🏠 Main

📰 News

👤 Account

⟨ QUANTUM ERROR PORTAL ⟩

Navigate the Error Dimensions

Jump to an anomaly59

Every one of these is a page: what the server emits, the clause it is judged against, and how each client answered. The full list carries the verdict tallies too.

Unsupported

does not report ECN counts, so the congestion signal had nowhere to be seen. 1 datagram(s) were marked CE and the codepoint demonstrably survives this path, so nothing here was lost in transit -- §13.4.1 requires reporting only where the ECN field is accessible to the endpoint, and for this client it is not.

The client does not do this, and said so itself — by what it advertised, or by refusing outright. A definite answer about the client, not a failure and not a gap.

What was measured

Client
quico — quico + lemon-tls, 0.7.0 (npm)
Test
Path marking packets CE, not just ECT(0) — q-ecn-congestion
Clause
RFC 9000 §13.4 (MUST)
Class
correctness — Rejected something invalid, with the code the RFC names.
Required behaviour
Report the CE count back in the ECN section of an ACK. §13.4.1 makes this the same conditional requirement as reporting ECT(0) — an endpoint MUST provide feedback about the markings it receives "if these are accessible" — and CE is the marking that matters, since it is how a path says it is congested. Distinct from the ECT(0) test on the neighbouring port: that one asks whether a client reports markings at all, and this asks whether it distinguishes the one that means something. A client that echoes ECT(0) counts faithfully and never reports a CE has a congestion signal it cannot see. Silence is never a failure, for the same reason, and it is read against the path in the same way: where this client's own datagrams arrived carrying ECT, or where any peer has echoed the markings this port sent, the codepoint demonstrably survives and the silence is the client's own -- `unsupported`, which §13.4.1 expressly allows. Only where nothing has shown the codepoint surviving is a stripped path still possible, and only there is the run inconclusive.
Measured
2026-10-15

Reproduce it

The suite is the judge, so the reproduction is to point the same client at the same test and let the server report what it saw.

SESSION=$(curl -sX POST https://conformance.pqcrypta.com/session | jq -r .id)
# then drive quico at the test URL and read the verdict:
curl -s https://conformance.pqcrypta.com/report/$SESSION.json | jq '.results["q-ecn-congestion"]'