Use this document to connect an official requirement or behavior to observable evidence: Negotiate ECN before treating congestion marks as transport signals. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.
\nThe official RFC 3168 — The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:
\nThese statements are the factual basis for this document. Do not extend them into a broader assurance. Review address plans, interfaces, routes, peers, protocol roles, timers, middleboxes, and intended failure domains only where the source and recorded environment align.
\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named network-protocol decision; it does not select vendor settings, topology, capacity, or an acceptable failure mode. A correct source interpretation can still be inapplicable to a particular design. Confirm DNS, Active Directory authentication, PKI, time, routing policy, transport reachability, and monitoring, ownership, and change authority instead of treating documented behavior as a deployment guarantee.
\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Start with applicability, then compare the observed state with the cited source. Record the source location, examined part of address plans, interfaces, routes, peers, protocol roles, timers, middleboxes, and intended failure domains, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.
\nTranslate the conclusion into change control only after documenting dependencies, impact, test method, expected signals, failure signals, and restoration steps. Include DNS, Active Directory authentication, PKI, time, routing policy, transport reachability, and monitoring, while excluding secrets and sensitive personal or topology data from ordinary tickets.
\nEvidence should let another reviewer reproduce this decision. Retain observations beside the traced locations Section 6.1.1 (TCP Initialization); Section 6.1.3 (The TCP Receiver); Section 6.1.2 (The TCP Sender). Favor configuration snapshots, route or neighbor state, packet captures, counters, topology records, and controlled failover results, linked to stable identifiers, time, and operator.
\nPreserve both successful and failed observations, along with approval and rollback evidence. Avoid uncontrolled production experiments. Assign an expiry or event-driven recheck so the conclusion is not treated as permanent.
\n