Hi, Sorry for my late reply. Thank you so much for your comments and questions. I have added everything as issues in the GITHUB repo to not lose track of how the questions have been reflected in the document updates.
I have already fixed the various nits. Kind regards, Nico On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 7:04 PM Border, John <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Some comments and questions… > > > > Since the idea for BDP Frame is to extend the QUIC protocol, is an > Intended Status of Informational the right choice? > > > NK : Good question. I do not know honestly. > The BDP Frame document is very oriented towards being used by Careful > Resume method. I assume this is on purpose. (I had always envisioned it > being used more generically that but have no other specific use case in > mind at this point.) > > > NK : Indeed, careful resume is a companion draft. This link should be made clearer in the documents. > Minor… In the Introduction, add a very short summary as to what the hash > mentioned in Step 1 is used for. > > > > In Section 3.1, re Saved BB… If using bytes_in_flight Is not recommended > what is recommended? > > > NK : This depends a lot on the congestion control that is exploited. I am not sure that we can reach a consensus on what this parameter could be in a generic manner. > In Section 3.1.1, it is not entirely clear what the difference is between > using BDP_FRAME and activating the optimization. Is the idea to allow > saving the CC values at the sender without sending them in a BDP_FRAME to > the receiver and the use of saved CC values is the optimization? > > > NK : Will clarify in updates of the document. > I assume, in Section 3.2 re the first sentence in the third paragraph that > the mechanism for identifying that it is the same receiver is being left > independent from the specification of BDP-FRAME. Or is this referring to > the Endpoint Token discussed in Section 3.3.1 in which case maybe that > section should be pointed to? > > > NK : Will clarify in updates of the document. > Re Section 3.2.2… I cannot find anything clearly labeled Rationale #N > except in the appendix. The solutions are in Section 6.1. (If referencing > the appendix for the rationale number is the intent, maybe it should not be > in an appendix but at least a reference to the table should be mentioned.) > And, in any case, in the appendix, there is no Rationale #1. > > > NK : Will clarify in updates of the document. > > > John > > > > > > Nits and readability enhancements… > > > > In the Abstract and again in the Introduction, change the first use of > “CC” to “Congestion Control (CC)”. > > > > In the Abstract… “amde" should be “made”. “This CC parameters” should be > “The CC parameters”. > > > > In the Introduction, Step 2… “portuon” should be “portion”. “premitted" > should be “permitted”. > > > > Change the first use of “BDP” to “Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP)” or > “bandwidth-delay product (BDP)”. I think the first standalone use is in > Section 1.1. > > > > The first statement in the third paragraph of Section 1.1 is a sentence > fragment. > > > > In Section 3.1, the description of the Hash says that value is derived > from “other” CC parameters. The phrasing could be interpreted as being > values outside of those inside the BDP_FRAME, i.e. from the sender’s own > information, or other values within the BDP_FRAME. Rephrase to make it > clear which. > > > > Really nitty… In Section 3.1 Saved BB, the second statement is a fragment. > > > > In Section 3.1 Save RTT, the third sentence is essentially the same as the > second sentence. > > > > In Section 3.1.1, for value 1, remove the duplicate “the”. > > > > In the first sentence of Section 3.2.1, “it could also” should be just > “could also”. > > > > In the second bullet of Section 3.3, “likeability” should be > “linkability”. Also, the Note at the end of Section 3.3 seems like it > should be part of Section 3.3.1. > > > > In the second paragraph of Section 3.3.1… “observable eavesdroppers” > should be “observable to eavesdroppers”. The last sentence is essentially > a duplicate of the second sentence. “provideing" should be “providing”. > > > > In the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.3.2, ”stroing” > should be “strong”. > > >
