[CCWG] draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-04 ietf last call Artart review

Marc Blanchet via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 15 July 2026 15:23 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Marc Blanchet via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <178412903289.774708.17546042703441601757@dt-datatracker-d4d6ff9d9-kg6bf>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 08:23:52 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: V2EGTIBCUV6OYYA6WUVOBMLZLD2ZJ5MT
CC: ccwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Reply-To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: [CCWG] draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-04 ietf last call Artart review
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccwg/n2_uxAk006dczDMjFBWjqBslkQ8>

Document: draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase
Title: Increase of the Congestion Window when the Sender Is Rate-Limited
Reviewer: Marc Blanchet
Review result: Ready with Nits

This is a review from the ARTART review team. I'm not a transport/congestion
control expert.

overall, I found this document well written and understandable. I have two
comments.

1) this document seems to imply that it applies to QUIC. However, in the
terminology section, some words are defined for TCP. Should they be updated for
QUIC?  Moreover, the example section seems to imply TCP as it talks about
segments. Should it be updated to also cover QUIC semantics?

2) (NIT): The first paragraph of section 3.  Rate-Limited Increase finishes
with a ":". However, without indentation or bullet lists or numbering, it is
not clear which paragraphs that follows are related to the first paragraph.
Suggest some indentation or bullet list or some formatting to improve.

[CCWG] draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-04 ie… Marc Blanchet via Datatracker