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

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ian,

On 5/18/21 10:32 PM, Ian Swett wrote:
> I believe this looks correct, but I have one question as a person 
> going through this process for the first time.
>
> I noticed the /rfc/ page was changed to /info/.  Is /info/, ie: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/>info/rfc8985, 
> the preferred reference URL?  I only ask because I have never seen 
> that style RFC page before this evening.

Yes. While both URLs work, the URL constructed with /info/ places the 
reader on the information page, which allows the reader to select the 
file format (pdf, html, txt, html with errata) and also highlights the 
metadata (updates, obsoletes, DOI, working group, stream information, 
etc.). The information page is also extensible, allowing new details 
about the document to be added in the future, whereas the /rfc/ page 
would be limited to the document itself.

Thanks for asking! Please let me know if you have any more questions.

Jean


>
> Thanks, Ian
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 1:18 PM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Martin,
>
>     Thank you for the updated file. As we did in RFC 9001, we have
>     explicitly set the URLs in the XML file to fix the discrepancy in
>     xml2rfc output:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-xmllastrfcdiff.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-xmllastrfcdiff.html>
>     (these
>     changes in the XML)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-lastrfcdiff.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-lastrfcdiff.html> (these
>     changes in the text)
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.txt
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.txt>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.pdf
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.pdf>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.html>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.xml
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.xml>
>
>     We will await further word from Jana and Ian regarding other AUTH48
>     changes and/or approval.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     RFC Editor/jm
>
>
>     On 5/17/21 7:16 PM, Martin Thomson via C430 wrote:
>     > I have these changes staged in our copy and can provide an
>     update based on that.  I don't know how the rfc-editor.org
>     <http://rfc-editor.org> links got broken though: the XML I have
>     uses /info/ for all RFC reference targets.
>     >
>     > On Tue, May 18, 2021, at 10:02, Jana Iyengar via C430 wrote:
>     >> 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] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >>> Thanks, please make those updates.
>     >>>
>     >>> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:25 PM Jean Mahoney
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[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
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcNNNN>>
>     >>>>>     Should be:  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcNNNN
>     <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
>     <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]
>     <mailto:[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
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>.
>     >>>>>> -->
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>> Thanks, in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4890
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <https://doi.org/10.1145/118544.118549>>.
>     >>>>>> -->
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>> Martin put this into
>     https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4889
>     <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4889>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>> Thank you.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> RFC Editor
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> On Apr 29, 2021, at 11:14 AM, [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[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/ <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/
>     <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
>     <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.xml>
>     >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.html>
>     >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.pdf
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.pdf>
>     >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.txt
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002.txt>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>     >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-diff.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-diff.html>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>     >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9002-xmldiff1.html
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430>
>     >> --
>     >> C430 mailing list
>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:C430%40rfc-editor.org <mailto:C430%2540rfc-editor.org>>
>     >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430>
>     >>
>