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

[[e-mail]]

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.  
-->


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]. 
-->


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). 
-->


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.
-->


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.
-->


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)

-->


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 
-->


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. 
-->


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.    
-->


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.  
-->


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.  
-->


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>.
-->


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