Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-recovery-32

Lucas Pardue <> Wed, 02 December 2020 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE633A1F63; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:47:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vmxuN9ZIDcDB; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 238E83A1F9D; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:44:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a16so5943749ejj.5; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:44:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c8hhGirTYvLxZc7U3QDFm2yUN+MayZ/EcLgo9/DJbq4=; b=PC+XiwmalYMV4kID7nccWeeASTV4Wwhy4rbWJd+Db/SFriz7x1OymmyQ3EgmG4gNP4 C9FdMSLuVwxDXeXm4WPmJKFtOwGXsy92FWVTh4SPaF2fPraxNtZ+HMFzM93bcIgvTFEj sKx9vnIBRu+hp+BDxPNMeTW5DsjkJNrYApYmKH4DbkZwt4KE+yTm29DUOWqMm3w35+3+ hMuVHC+Y5KX6Zc+m0oSfasFv6Xpn/+Vm/JdCR1ZwT9EAuxpjv8ab5SGUWG4v0EmssQ9m 4OyJrH0IcSnBal0JbwzG+BTjK8xVjusaxor/3kZYSZeidp7qAp8wqtlbaFlz/uPpQC0L WYGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c8hhGirTYvLxZc7U3QDFm2yUN+MayZ/EcLgo9/DJbq4=; b=ez/MaXsOraijvKReoxLHc6P5BidoeO6QPcde827tcpw6yRVo3pBTJ59blQdRQdXOCN H8/RdU0w846uBa/u44vO30fROfNnGJKKfBBD+FN++SLQQnVRyVnY6M1mL1Wz5CwSI9XR Y/hnsAsBlfI3tQXj55rRnLhUQ0v9wXD9gkNoQfpfRh0nG194wbWnn3hwGeC15yOsUuKB K5HlxSy73XuCH7eD9HKTYeRRmoDsWiDwR72H2AfkvnfxpM3ImM317lX6VxbRkRf4qCYb tSoEgVBxM7tOb4lL+KIc1/v9KH/RQhkfKAgYU6/TLLpz24unEXrde/TJhYintyDRF7Th BW+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533pOKWUQ7sm466IWSouYkGoAuH7O94k+BgsfrUCqr4dsfJj8XeN Cp6GLc749ZKHnkuoOQlXWjNu3odyt9EhZOQnfUY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqp+uBqf+Brl7XFVDpKb2FvjdehFLR4uRWTRn2zbVAoTokjGFWkHAf4jaIiVlycbn2C9AWo1qi4HbgU6PkA1s=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1e93:: with SMTP id e19mr1155815ejj.440.1606934676696; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:44:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 18:44:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: Vijay Gurbani <>
Cc:,, QUIC WG <>,, Magnus Westerlund <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094f1ea05b57fa2dd"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-recovery-32
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 18:47:50 -0000

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

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.

Lars and Lucas
QUIC WG Co-chairs

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:28 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <> 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
> <>.
> 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