Gorry -
I have two questions, that relates to RFC3448 v. RFC 5348:
* There is also a citation of [RFC4342Errat] - which I think used to
be referenced from:
We don't expect that errata would be added to CCID
3 that didn't apply to CCID 4, but if this should happen, we would
say this explicitly in the errata.
The original text related to RFC3448, but if this is still the
intention a similar clause may be useful at some point in section 3.1.
I deleted [RFC4342Errat] from the References - the reference in the
text was already gone.
* The new text refers to RFC3448 in section 5, where the new text
says:
For CCID 4, this loss event rate, a round-
333 trip time estimate, and a nominal packet size of 1460 bytes are
334 plugged into the TCP throughput equation, as specified in RFC 3448
335 (Section 3.1) and [RFC4828].
I wonder if this was intentional? - Please could you comment?
Sorry, that was an oversight. I fixed it.
I also have a few editorial notes:
Thanks, I fixed them.
The revised draft is at:
"http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4-03b.txt";,
"http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4-03b.pdf:.
Take care,
- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/
