Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recovery Editorial Nits (#2667)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms implicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on
 TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamps are
 not available.
 
+### Clearer Loss Epoch
+
+QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is
+acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be filled,
+and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does not

```suggestion
and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch may not
```

> @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms implicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on
 TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamps are
 not available.
 
+### Clearer Loss Epoch
+
+QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is
+acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be filled,
+and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does not
+end. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch,  QUIC may reduce

```suggestion
end for several round trips. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch,  QUIC will reduce its
```

> @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms implicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on
 TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamps are
 not available.
 
+### Clearer Loss Epoch
+
+QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is
+acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be filled,
+and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does not
+end. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch,  QUIC may reduce
+congestion window multiple times in the same circumstances TCP only reduces

```suggestion
congestion window correctly once for every round trip that experiences loss, while TCP may only reduce
```

-- 
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/2667#pullrequestreview-234781864