Re: Second WGLC for QUIC Acknowledgement Frequency

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 03/05/2024 01:00, Lucas Pardue wrote:
 > Hi folks,
 >
 > The document authors have recently published 09 of 
draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency [1]. This address feedback received during 
the last WGLC and leaves us with zero open issues or pull requests.
 >
 > We're running a second, shorter, WGLC to give folks an opportunity to 
review the entire changeset before progressing document. It commences 
now and concludes on Friday May 10 2024 anywhere on earth.
 >
 > Please direct feedback as issues on the github repository at
 > https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency.
 >
 > Cheers
 > Lucas & Matt
 > QuIC WG Chairs
 >
 >
 > [1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency/

I've read -09, the changes seem fine to me, I think this is ready to 
progress, but I do have some editorial comments (mainly on the new text):

1. The text says:

        “it leaves the determination of how
         frequently to send acknowledgments in response to ack-eliciting
         packets to the data receiver, without any ability for the data 
sender
         to impact this behavior.”

- This new sentence construction includes two “to”s. That seems rather 
clumsy, could we rewrite without one of them, such as:

“the data receiver determines how
         frequently to send acknowledgments in response to ack-eliciting
         packets, without any ability for the data sender
         to impact this behavior.”
--

2. The text says "impact" twice:
“to impact this behavior.”
- Is impact correct? is this better as /influence/ or /guide/ or /control/
(This also appears later as: “without any ability for the data sender to 
impact”...)
--


3. The text says: "high bandwidth connections".

- I do not think that this is really about the path /bandwidth/ ... 
isn’t this actually the application rate, so ought it to be high-rate 
connections?
--

4. The text says:
"of packet 10 needs to trigger another immediate ACK because only with
the reporting of the successful receiption of packet 10, the sender
will be able to declare packet 7 as lost (with a reordering threshold"
- This was an awkward read, and also includes a typo. Could this be 
something like:

"of packet 10 needs to trigger another immediate ACK, because
the sender will be unable to declare packet 7 as lost (with a reordering 
threshold
of 3) until it receives an ACK reporting the reception of packet 10."
--

5. The text says:
"if multiple CE-marked packets are received in a row"
- I am not sure what is intended by "in a row",  would it be clearer as 
this or something else?:
"if multiple consecutive CE-marked packets are received?"

--

Best wishes,


Gorry