Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] WGLC review nits for Recovery (#3877)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

@MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> @@ -103,12 +103,12 @@ TCP implementations.
 
 Definitions of terms that are used in this document:
 
-Ack-eliciting Frames:
+Ack-eliciting frames:

I'd either title-case or sentence-case these terms, but right now it's mixed.

> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ mean variation.
 The calculation of smoothed_rtt uses path latency after adjusting RTT samples
 for acknowledgement delays. These delays are computed using the ACK Delay
 field of the ACK frame as described in Section 19.3 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.
-For packets sent in the ApplicationData packet number space, a peer limits
+For packets sent in the Application Data packet number space, a peer limits

This is two separate words in the other drafts; I changed it in the prose but left it in the pseudo-code, since it's an enum value there.

> @@ -430,13 +430,13 @@ thresholds to minimize recovery latency.
 
 The RECOMMENDED initial value for the packet reordering threshold
 (kPacketThreshold) is 3, based on best practices for TCP loss detection
-{{?RFC5681}} {{?RFC6675}}.  Implementations SHOULD NOT use a packet threshold
-less than 3, to keep in line with TCP {{?RFC5681}}.
+({{?RFC5681}}, {{?RFC6675}}).  Implementations SHOULD NOT use a packet threshold
+less than 3, to keep in line with TCP ({{?RFC5681}}).

"to keep in line with" felt awkward, but I didn't come up with a rephrasing I was confident of.  Maybe "comparable to TCP"?

> @@ -711,18 +710,18 @@ before Initial packets, early 0-RTT packets will be declared lost, but that
 is expected to be infrequent.
 
 It is expected that keys are discarded after packets encrypted with them would
-be acknowledged or declared lost.  Initial secrets however might be destroyed

This "might" is a MUST.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3877#pullrequestreview-445099674