# tsvart-early review of draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-03

CC @larseggert

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport
area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF
documents. These comments were written primarily for the
transport area directors, but are copied to the
document's authors and WG to allow them to address any
issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for
information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors
should consider this review as part of the last-call
comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org
if you reply to or forward this review.

## Comments

This is ready to go IMO.

### Section 3, paragraph 7
```
     cwnd_new = cwnd + min (N, SMSS)
     cwnd = min(cwnd_new, 2*maxFS)
```
I kinda wish this and other formulas used proper HTML math, now that we have it.

### DOWNREFs

DOWNREF `[RFC7661]` from this Proposed Standard to Experimental `RFC7661`. (For
IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and
also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC2861]` to `RFC2861`, which was obsoleted by `RFC7661` (this may
be on purpose).

Document references `draft-ietf-ccwg-bbr-04`, but `-05` is the latest available
revision.

### URLs

These URLs in the document did not return content:

 * https://www.tomh.org/
 * https://mwelzl.github.io/draft-ccwg-ratelimited-increase/draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase.html

### Grammar/style

#### "Abstract", paragraph 4
```
n the Congestion Control Working Group Working Group mailing list (mailto:ccw
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This phrase is duplicated. You should probably use "Working Group" only once.
[PHRASE_REPETITION]

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 2
```
on control algorithm is started. Thereafter when the FlightSize is updated, t
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thereafter".
[SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA]

#### "I", paragraph 5
```
ion for the remaining 4 segments afterwards, no packets are lost, and an ACK
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
```
In American English, "afterward" is the preferred variant. "Afterwards" is more
commonly used in British English and other dialects. [AFTERWARDS_US]

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 1
```
e Slow Start phase, the arrival of an each ACK for the 10 sent segments incre
                                   ^^^^^^^
```
Two determiners in a row. Choose either "an" or "each". [DT_DT]

#### Section 3.1.2, paragraph 1
```
stion, a cwnd that has been fully utilized during an RTT (where a sender was
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Do not mix variants of the same word ("utilize" and "utilise") within a single
text. [EN_WORD_COHERENCY]

#### "B.1.2.", paragraph 2
```
 congestion window is being fully utilized and the data sender is not in Fas
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Do not mix variants of the same word ("utilize" and "utilise") within a single
text. [EN_WORD_COHERENCY]

#### "B.1.2.", paragraph 4
```
ection neither contains a similar rule, nor does it refer back to the rule th
                                      ^
```
There appears to be an unneeded comma here. "Neither...nor" is a correlative
conjunction, so a comma should not separate the pair.
[NEITHER_NOR_SUPERFLUOUS_COMMA]

#### "B.3.1.", paragraph 2
```
ongestion window is not being fully utilized. B.5.2. Assessment A DCCP Conges
                                    ^^^^^^^^
```
Do not mix variants of the same word ("utilize" and "utilise") within a single
text. [EN_WORD_COHERENCY]

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF]. You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool