Hi Derrell, Thank you for the review. I've opened a GitHub issue for any discussion related to this review: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4324
There is also a milestone at https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/milestone/8. Thanks, Lucas On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:20 PM Derrell Piper via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Derrell Piper > Review result: Ready > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area > directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > The summary of the review is: Ready, with an optional nit. > > This document is QUIC's Loss Detection and Congestion Control and is part > of > QUIC Last Call. > > Pp. 7, "after the epoch starts is acknowledged" should maybe be singular, > unless the intent is literal and I'm missing what a "starts" is. > > There's no explicit security going on here, other than in the larger > picture > of QUIC itself, namely that in QUIC-TLS and QUIC-TRANSPORT; this is only > its > congestion control. However, Security Considerations correctly highlights > some of the major traffic analysis concerns with QUIC and congestion > control > in general, and there are some, but these are not unique to QUIC, nor would > they likely be addressed inside of congestion control, so this is okay. It > seems well written and based on a practical understanding of existing TCP > congestion control along with current academic research on this topic. > > Derrell > > >
