Thanks, Gorry! I created a PR, so others can quickly review this before we merge!
https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency/pull/296/files Mirja On 21.05.24, 19:33, "Gorry Fairhurst" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 03/05/2024 01:00, Lucas Pardue wrote: > Hi folks, > > The document authors have recently published 09 of draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency [1]. This address feedback received during the last WGLC and leaves us with zero open issues or pull requests. > > We're running a second, shorter, WGLC to give folks an opportunity to review the entire changeset before progressing document. It commences now and concludes on Friday May 10 2024 anywhere on earth. > > Please direct feedback as issues on the github repository at > https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency > <https://github.com/quicwg/ack-frequency>. > > Cheers > Lucas & Matt > QuIC WG Chairs > > > [1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency/> I've read -09, the changes seem fine to me, I think this is ready to progress, but I do have some editorial comments (mainly on the new text): 1. The text says: “it leaves the determination of how frequently to send acknowledgments in response to ack-eliciting packets to the data receiver, without any ability for the data sender to impact this behavior.” - This new sentence construction includes two “to”s. That seems rather clumsy, could we rewrite without one of them, such as: “the data receiver determines how frequently to send acknowledgments in response to ack-eliciting packets, without any ability for the data sender to impact this behavior.” -- 2. The text says "impact" twice: “to impact this behavior.” - Is impact correct? is this better as /influence/ or /guide/ or /control/ (This also appears later as: “without any ability for the data sender to impact”...) -- 3. The text says: "high bandwidth connections". - I do not think that this is really about the path /bandwidth/ ... isn’t this actually the application rate, so ought it to be high-rate connections? -- 4. The text says: "of packet 10 needs to trigger another immediate ACK because only with the reporting of the successful receiption of packet 10, the sender will be able to declare packet 7 as lost (with a reordering threshold" - This was an awkward read, and also includes a typo. Could this be something like: "of packet 10 needs to trigger another immediate ACK, because the sender will be unable to declare packet 7 as lost (with a reordering threshold of 3) until it receives an ACK reporting the reception of packet 10." -- 5. The text says: "if multiple CE-marked packets are received in a row" - I am not sure what is intended by "in a row", would it be clearer as this or something else?: "if multiple consecutive CE-marked packets are received?" -- Best wishes, Gorry
