[tcpm] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-13: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-13: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-13

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Stewart Bryant for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/t0F_6gKPTPrCO6Lo9IvuVwUHY88).

## Comments

### Section 4.2, paragraph 0
```
  4.2.  Algorithm Details
```
I found this intermingling of prose and pseudocode hard to follow. It would be
better to have a full description of the algorithm in prose, plus a full
pseudocode implementation (that used loops, etc.)

### Section 4.2, paragraph 4
```
     lastRoundMinRTT = currentRoundMinRTT
     currentRoundMinRTT = infinity
     rttSampleCount = 0
```
currentRoundMinRTT is used in the first line but only initialized in the second
line - swap?

### Section 4.2, paragraph 21
```
     If CSS_ROUNDS rounds are complete, enter congestion avoidance.

     ssthresh = cwnd
```
Is this assignment part of entering congestion avoidance?

### Section 4.2, paragraph 21
```
     If loss or ECN-marking is observed anytime during standard slow start
     or CSS, enter congestion avoidance.

     ssthresh = cwnd
```
Is this assignment part of entering congestion avoidance?

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`,
   `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`,
   `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`,
   `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 1, paragraph 2
```
-    a novel Conservative Slow Start (CSS) phase is used to determine
-       -- ^
+    a new Conservative Slow Start (CSS) phase is used to determine
+        ^
```

### Grammar/style

#### Section 5, paragraph 2
```
dropping data packets or their acknowledgments. The ACK division attack outl
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Do not mix variants of the same word ("acknowledgment" and "acknowledgement")
within a single text.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool