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

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Éric,

Thanks for the review. I've captured your comments as issues on the QUIC WG
GItHub repository. Links to each are provided as in-line responses.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:31 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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).
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4588


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

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4589


> -- Section 1 --
> Suggest to specify version 1 for the 2nd sentence.
>
> This (too?) short introduction would benefit by mentioning UDP transport.
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4590


> == 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'.
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4591


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

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4592

Cheers,
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs