On 27/03/2023 04:06, ianswett wrote:
Closed #167 <https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency/issues/167> as
completed.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency/issues/167#event-8849156643>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYLLEWEC4NCKSNFSOGPG5LW6D73DANCNFSM6AAAAAAVYZMFAA>.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
<quicwg/ack-frequency/issue/167/issue_event/[email protected]>
This seems to have closed, without answering the comment, so my
suggestion was to change:
OLD:
"In keeping with Section 7.7 of [QUIC-RECOVERY], a sender
can either employ pacing or limit bursts to the initial congestion
window."
When I re-read Section 7.7 of [QUIC-RECOVERY], and found an issue in
that the text does not precisely say what I thought was intended, it says:
"Senders SHOULD limit bursts to the initial congestion window",
**I ** think the above existing text in RFC9002 refers to limiting
bursts to the size of IW, but I received a question whether this could
be read as during the time when cwnd<=IW. What do we intend?
Can we write NEW:
"In keeping with Section 7.7 of [QUIC-RECOVERY], a sender
can either employ pacing or limit bursts to the size of the initial
congestion
window."
Gorry
