[tcpm] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-06

tuexen@fh-muenster.de Thu, 28 July 2022 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242D0C13C21A; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 02:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OS7YOHEm2iNr; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 02:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48B0FC13C236; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 02:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:881e:d8a5:9ba5:44f0]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by drew.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B0F3709EE05A; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:28:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A0D14D2E-A2BE-4D95-B618-08D9ED535DFC"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Message-Id: <3F449042-8931-47BB-92CD-5298B7964F64@fh-muenster.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:28:04 +0200
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
To: draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/tYi9BEkl4APqBi9YXaRqlnkdkPU>
Subject: [tcpm] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-06
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 09:28:19 -0000

Dear authors,

as the document shepherd I read the ID and have some comments. Could
you address them and submit an updated version?

Here are the comments:

Abstract:

Please fix the following typo:

OLD:
doument
NEW:
document

Section 1:

You might provide at the end also a reference to SCTP. Something like:

OLD:
such as QUIC [RFC9002].
NEW:
such as QUIC [RFC9002] or SCTP [RFC9260].

This includes adding an informative reference for RFC 9260 to Section 8.2.

Section 2:

Please use the updated text of RFC 8174.

OLD:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in [RFC2119].

NEW:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in
all capitals, as shown here.

This includes adding an normative reference for RFC 8174 to Section 8.1.

Section 3:

Please change the mentioning of RFC 1191, RFC 4821, and RFC 1122 to
references to these RFCs.
This includes adding informative references for RFC 1191, RFC 4821,
and RFC 1122 to Section 8.2.

Section 4.2:

OLD:
   For the pseudocode, we assume that Appropriate Byte Counting (as
   described in [RFC3465]) is in use and L is the cwnd increase limit as
   discussed in RFC 3465.

NEW:
   The following pseudocode integrates Appropriate Byte Counting as
   described in [RFC3465]. In particular, see [RFC3465] for the
   definition of the variable L.

This includes moving the reference for RFC 3465 from Section 8.1 to
Section 8.2 (which means it is an informative reference, not a
normative reference).

Please add a full stop at the end of the sentence and add description
of currRTT:
OLD:
   lastRoundMinRTT and currentRoundMinRTT are initialized to infinity
   at the initialization time

NEW:
   lastRoundMinRTT and currentRoundMinRTT are initialized to infinity
   at the initialization time. currRTT is the RTT sampled from the
   latest incoming ACK and initialized to infinity.

Please take the two occurrences of
	• where currRTT is the RTT sampled from the latest incoming ACK
out of the enumerations.

Please move the two sentences:
   CSS lasts at most CSS_ROUNDS rounds. If the transition into CSS happens in
   the middle of a round, that partial round counts towards the limit.
down, just before  "If CSS_ROUNDS rounds are complete, enter congestion avoidance."

I would suggest to put pseudocode into
<sourcecode type="pseudocode">
...
</sourcecode>
instead of using lists.

Section 4.3:

Should
A TCP implementation is required to take
be
A TCP implementation is REQUIRED to take
If not, please avoid using "required".

Best regards
Michael