Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial: More concise intro text (recovery) (#3380)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

I too found the sell a little too strong.  This is better, but I also find the list of un-referenced claims of where this is inspired to still be a little hard to stomach.

I've made something of a suggestion here about what might be said that doesn't rely on reciting a list of unreferenced sources.

> -attractive as a modern general-purpose transport.  The QUIC protocol is
-described in {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.
-
-QUIC implements the spirit of existing TCP congestion control and loss recovery
-mechanisms, described in RFCs, various Internet-drafts, and also those prevalent
-in the Linux TCP implementation.  This document describes QUIC congestion
-control and loss recovery, and where applicable, attributes the TCP equivalent
-in RFCs, Internet-drafts, academic papers, and/or TCP implementations.
-
+QUIC is a new multiplexed and secure transport protocol atop UDP, specified in
+{{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}. This document describes congestion control and loss
+recovery for QUIC. Mechanisms described in this documnet follow the spirit
+of existing TCP congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms, described in
+RFCs, various Internet-drafts, or academic papers, and also those prevalent in
+the Linux TCP implementation. Where applicable, this document attributes the TCP
+equivalent.

This last sentence seems incomplete.  I think that you are saying that the mechanisms here are informed by TCP.  Any differences are necessary as a result of differences in QUIC relative to TCP; or demonstrably advantageous as a result of QUIC lacking some of the limitations of TCP.

-- 
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/3380#pullrequestreview-346956484