Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-recovery/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. Even for a non transport person
like myself, I find the text easy to read.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Does the QUIC WG intend to have a BCP-like document on how network devices on
the path should handle buffers? E.g., QUIC ressembles a lot to TCP so nodes can
apply back pressure with mechanisms similar to RED (but, AFAIK, RED is mainly
applied to TCP traffic so not to QUIC/UDP).

-- Abstract --
Should the QUIC version be specified ?

-- Section 1 --
Suggest to specify version 1 for the 2nd sentence.

This (too?) short introduction would benefit by mentioning UDP transport.

== NITS ==

-- Section 7.2 --
  "Endpoints SHOULD use an initial congestion
   window of 10 times the maximum datagram size (max_datagram_size),
   limited to the larger of 14720 bytes or twice the maximum datagram
   size. "

The above text looks ambiguous to me especially with the ',' before 'limited'.

Also, s/8 byte overhead/8-byte overhead/ ?