Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-recovery-32

From: Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 09:28:46 -0800

Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-quic-recovery-32
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2020-12-02
IETF LC End Date: 2020-11-16
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication with nits/minor issues.

Major issues: 0

Minor issues: 2 (Sn refers to Section n)

- S1: "Mechanisms described in this document follow the spirit of existing 
 TCP congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms, described in RFCs, 
 various Internet-drafts, or academic papers ..." ==> It may be helpful
 to provide some references to the RFCs and academic papers.  On the
 academic paper side, a couple of survey papers may help.  A quick
 search indicates the following recent publications may be useful:

 [1] Al-Saadi, R., Armitage, G., But, J. and Branch, P., 2019. A survey 
 of delay-based and hybrid TCP congestion control algorithms. IEEE 
 Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(4), pp.3609-3638.
 [2] Widmer, J., Denda, R. and Mauve, M., 2001. A survey on TCP-friendly 
 congestion control. IEEE network, 15(3), pp.28-37.

 For RFCs, perhaps rfc5681 is useful to cite?  Any others?

- S4.2, first paragraph: Perhaps citing rfc6298 is helpful here to further
 provide information on the "retransmission ambiguity" problem?

Nits/editorial comments: 0