Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Make references normative #4179

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Make references normative #4179

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ exiting the recovery period.

Implementations MAY reduce the congestion window immediately upon entering a
recovery period or use other mechanisms, such as Proportional Rate Reduction
({{?PRR=RFC6937}}), to reduce the congestion window more gradually. If the
({{!PRR=RFC6937}}), to reduce the congestion window more gradually. If the
congestion window is reduced immediately, a single packet can be sent prior to
reduction. This speeds up loss recovery if the data in the lost packet is
retransmitted and is similar to TCP as described in Section 5 of {{?RFC6675}}.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ the congestion window SHOULD NOT be increased in either slow start or
congestion avoidance. This can happen due to insufficient application data
or flow control limits.

A sender MAY use the pipeACK method described in Section 4.3 of {{?RFC7661}}
A sender MAY use the pipeACK method described in Section 4.3 of {{!RFC7661}}
to determine if the congestion window is sufficiently utilized.

A sender that paces packets (see {{pacing}}) might delay sending packets
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1133,8 +1133,8 @@ limits and so no advantage is gained by doing so.

Endpoints choose the congestion controller that they use. Congestion controllers
respond to reports of ECN-CE by reducing their rate, but the response may vary.
Markings can be treated as equivalent to loss ({{?RFC3168}}), but other
responses can be specified, such as ({{?RFC8511}}) or ({{?RFC8311}}).
Markings can be treated as equivalent to loss ({{!RFC3168}}), but other
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This section doesn't have normative language, so I don't see a need for these references to be normative.

responses can be specified, such as ({{!RFC8511}}) or ({{!RFC8311}}).


# IANA Considerations
Expand Down