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 < nore...@ietf.org> 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 > > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
