Hi Vijay,
Thanks for the review! Since
the QUIC WG uses a Github Workflow I've created a separate issue for
each of the items in your review, see in-line
responses for the precise issue link. All issues are track in the
milestone https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/milestone/22
We'd
appreciate it if you could coordinate with the Recovery document editors via
GitHub, on the issue itself and/or any Pull Request that might be
raised to address your comments.
Cheers
Lars and Lucas
QUIC WG Co-chairs
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:28 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
