Re: [C430] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9002 <draft-ietf-quic-recovery-34.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

Jean, Ian,

Given that we are making these changes for the transport document, it might
make sense for us to do these as well. Also so that our github repo is in
line with what eventually gets published. I'm happy to make these changes.

- jana

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:32 PM Ian Swett via C430 <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks, please make those updates.
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:25 PM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> Thank you for the updated document! We found a few small issues:
>>
>> We found a typo ("itsestimate") in the XML that is not present in the
>> markdown file in GitHub:
>>
>>    This also
>>    allows a connection to reset itsestimate of min_rtt and smoothed_rtt
>>    after a disruptive network event; see Section 5.3.
>>
>> In our edits, we had updated the [RACK] reference from
>> draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-15 to the RFC that replaced it (RFC 8985). We see that
>> the reference has changed back to draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-15. Is this
>> intentional?
>>
>> In the References section, the URLs for RFCs should point to the RFC
>> landing page ("/info/" instead of "/rfc/"):
>>
>>    Current:  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcNNNN>
>>
>>    Should be:  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcNNNN>
>>
>> Would you like us to make these updates or would you like to update the
>> file?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> RFC Editor/jm
>> On 5/7/21 12:57 PM, Ian Swett wrote:
>>
>> Similar to Martin, I'm writing PRs to address these issues.
>>
>> Changes are in PR #4892 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4892>
>> unless otherwise noted.  I've gone over the changes with Jana and he's now
>> approved the relevant PRs, so I think we're good to go.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 2:19 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Authors,
>>>
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve
>>> (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>
>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
>>> -->
>>>
>>> Thanks, in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4890
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2) <!-- [rfced]  We have updated the cross reference to point to RFC
>>> 6298
>>> ("Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer") instead of RFC 6297 ("A Survey
>>> of
>>> Lower-than-Best-Effort Transport Protocols"). Please let us know if
>>> other changes are necessary.
>>>
>>> Original:
>>>    QUIC uses a probe timeout (PTO; see Section 6.2), with a timer based
>>>    on TCP's RTO computation; see [RFC6297].
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>    QUIC uses a probe timeout (PTO; see Section 6.2), with a timer based
>>>    on TCP's retransmission timeout (RTO) computation; see [RFC6298].
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for catching that!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Does the following improve the readability of the
>>> paragraph?
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>    Endpoints SHOULD set the min_rtt to the newest RTT sample after
>>>    persistent congestion is established. This is to allow a connection
>>>    to reset its estimate of min_rtt and smoothed_rtt after a
>>>    disruptive network event (Section 5.3), and because it is possible
>>>    that an increase in path delay resulted in persistent congestion
>>>    being incorrectly declared.
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>>    Endpoints SHOULD set the min_rtt to the newest RTT sample after
>>>    persistent congestion is established because it is possible that
>>>    an increase in path delay resulted in persistent congestion being
>>>    incorrectly declared. This also allows a connection to reset its
>>>    estimate of min_rtt and smoothed_rtt after a disruptive network
>>>    event (Section 5.3).
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> I agree this is more readable, but it is subtly different, so I put it in
>> a separate PR: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4891
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 4) <!-- [rfced]  In the following sentence, do implementations also
>>> increase the time threshold?
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>     Implementations can detect spurious retransmissions and increase
>>>     the reordering threshold in packets or time to reduce future
>>>     spurious retransmissions and loss events.
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>>     Implementations can detect spurious retransmissions and can increase
>>>     the reordering threshold in packets or increase the time threshold
>>>     in order to reduce future spurious retransmissions and loss events.
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> Changed to "the packet or time reordering threshold to reduce..." to
>> clarify.
>>
>>
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have marked this Note as an <aside>.
>>> <aside> is defined as follows:
>>>
>>> From https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2
>>>    This element is a container for content that is semantically
>>>    less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it.
>>>
>>> Please let us know if any updates are needed.
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> Included in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4889
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following term appears to be
>>> used
>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how
>>> they
>>> may be made consistent.
>>>
>>> application data / Application Data
>>>
>>> Note that RFC-to-be 9000 <draft-ietf-quic-transport> uses the lowercase
>>> form consistently.
>>>
>>> We raised a similar question for RFC-to-be 9001; the authors decided on
>>> the following:
>>>
>>> > The outcome is that figures will use title case for consistency (as
>>> appropriate)
>>> > and text will use the  lowercase form.  There is one reference to TLS
>>> > Application Data, where I have kept the title case to match the usage
>>> in RFC 8446.
>>>
>>> (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/c430/2021-April/000016.html)
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>
>> I changed the text to use "Application Data" when referring to the packet
>> number space, and "application data" otherwise.
>> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4893
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7) <!-- [rfced]  We are having difficulty parsing the following sentence.
>>> Could the packets be acknowledged if the keys were still available?
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>    Initial packets and Handshake packets could be never acknowledged,
>>>    but they are removed from bytes in flight when the Initial and
>>>    Handshake keys are discarded
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>>    When the Initial and Handshake keys are discarded, the Initial
>>>    packets and Handshake packets can no longer be acknowledged, and
>>>    they are removed from bytes in flight
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, the packets can be acknowledged until the keys are discarded, so I
>> took your suggestion and added 'keys' after the first 'Initial' for
>> parallelism.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 8) <!-- [rfced]  In the following, is "PTO timer" rather than "probe
>>> timer"
>>> meant?
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>    That is, the client MUST set the probe timer if the client has not
>>>    received an acknowledgment for any of its Handshake packets and the
>>>    handshake is not confirmed (see Section 4.1.2 of [QUIC-TLS]), even
>>>    if there are no packets in flight.
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>>  Yes, at some point we were using "probe timer" and "PTO timer"
>> interchangeably, but it's best to consistently use PTO timer. Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We are having difficulty parsing the following:
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>    It is expected that keys are discarded after packets encrypted with
>>>    them would be acknowledged or declared lost.
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>>    It is expected that keys are discarded at some time after the
>>>    packets encrypted with them are either acknowledged or declared lost.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps:
>>>    Some time after the packets are either acknowledged or declared lost,
>>>    the keys with which they were encrypted are discarded.
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> The first suggestion is good, so I will use that. The second suggestion
>> doesn't fully convey the intent of the sentence, IMHO.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 10) <!-- [rfced]  We note that RFC 9000 (draft-ietf-quic-transport) uses
>>> <tt> for some equations.  Please review and let us know if you would
>>> like
>>> the equations to appear in <tt>.
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>    Packets 2 through 8 are declared lost when the acknowledgment for
>>>    packet 9 is received at t = 12.2.
>>>
>>>    The congestion period is calculated as the time between the oldest
>>>    and newest lost packets: 8 - 1 = 7.  The persistent congestion
>>>    duration is: 2 * 3 = 6.
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> Good point, MT changed in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4889
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Does the following reordering of the sentences improve
>>> readability?
>>>
>>> Current:
>>>    When bytes in flight is smaller than the congestion window and
>>>    sending is not pacing limited, the congestion window is
>>>    underutilized.  When this occurs, the congestion window SHOULD NOT be
>>>    increased in either slow start or congestion avoidance.  This can
>>>    happen due to insufficient application data or flow control limits.
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>>    When the count of bytes in flight is smaller than the congestion
>>>    window and sending is not pacing limited, the congestion window is
>>>    underutilized, which can happen due to insufficient application
>>>    data or reduced flow control limits.  When this occurs in either the
>>>    slow start or congestion avoidance states, the congestion window
>>>    SHOULD NOT be increased.
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> I think the reordering reads more clearly, but the addition of "count of"
>> does not help, so I swapped the second and third sentences.
>>
>>
>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] We did not find the paper below published in January
>>> 1995.
>>> We did find one published in 1987 and a revision published in 1991.
>>> Which one should be referenced?
>>>
>>> Original:
>>>    [RETRANSMISSION]
>>>               Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Improving Round-Trip Time
>>>               Estimates in Reliable Transport Protocols", ACM SIGCOMM
>>>               CCR , January 1995.
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>>    [RETRANSMISSION]
>>>               Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Improving Round-Trip Time
>>>               Estimates in Reliable Transport Protocols", ACM SIGCOMM
>>>               Computer Communication Review, DOI 10.1145/55483.55484,
>>>               August 1987, <https://doi.org/10.1145/55483.55484>.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps:
>>>    [RETRANSMISSION]
>>>               Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Improving Round-Trip Time
>>>               Estimates in Reliable Transport Protocols", ACM
>>> Transactions
>>>               on Computer Systems, DOI 10.1145/118544.118549,
>>>               November 1991, <https://doi.org/10.1145/118544.118549>.
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>> Martin put this into https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4889
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> RFC Editor
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2021, at 11:14 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>
>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>
>>> Updated 2021/04/29
>>>
>>> RFC Author(s):
>>> --------------
>>>
>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>
>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>
>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>> your approval.
>>>
>>> Planning your review
>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>
>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>
>>>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>>   follows:
>>>
>>>   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>
>>>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>
>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>>
>>>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>
>>> *  Content
>>>
>>>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>>   change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
>>>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>   - contact information
>>>   - references
>>>
>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>
>>>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>
>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>
>>>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>>>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>>>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>>   <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
>>>
>>> *  Formatted output
>>>
>>>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>
>>>
>>> Submitting changes
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the following,
>>> using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see
>>> your changes:
>>>
>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>> — OR —
>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>
>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>> old text
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>> new text
>>>
>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>
>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of
>>> text,
>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found
>>> in
>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream
>>> manager.
>>>
>>>
>>> Approving for publication
>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s
>>> tating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’
>>> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>
>>>
>>> Files
>>> -----
>>>
>>> The files are available here:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.xml
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.html
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.pdf
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.txt
>>>
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-diff.html
>>>
>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-xmldiff1.html
>>>
>>> The following file is provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>> diff files of the XML.  This file is a best effort to capture v3-related
>>> format updates only:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.form.xml
>>>
>>>
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>>
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9002
>>>
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>
>>> RFC Editor
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9002 (draft-ietf-quic-recovery-34)
>>>
>>> Title            : QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control
>>> Author(s)        : J. Iyengar, Ed., I. Swett, Ed.
>>> WG Chair(s)      : Lars Eggert, Lucas Pardue, Matt Joras
>>> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
> C430 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>