Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-quic-recovery-32 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: 2020-12-02 IETF LC End Date: 2020-11-16 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready for publication with nits/minor issues. Major issues: 0 Minor issues: 2 (Sn refers to Section n) - S1: "Mechanisms described in this document follow the spirit of existing TCP congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms, described in RFCs, various Internet-drafts, or academic papers ..." ==> It may be helpful to provide some references to the RFCs and academic papers. On the academic paper side, a couple of survey papers may help. A quick search indicates the following recent publications may be useful: [1] Al-Saadi, R., Armitage, G., But, J. and Branch, P., 2019. A survey of delay-based and hybrid TCP congestion control algorithms. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(4), pp.3609-3638. [2] Widmer, J., Denda, R. and Mauve, M., 2001. A survey on TCP-friendly congestion control. IEEE network, 15(3), pp.28-37. For RFCs, perhaps rfc5681 is useful to cite? Any others? - S4.2, first paragraph: Perhaps citing rfc6298 is helpful here to further provide information on the "retransmission ambiguity" problem? Nits/editorial comments: 0 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
