Many thanks to Marc Blanchet for the ARTART review.

I also agree with Roman, Ketan, and Mahesh wrt the question of what is updated in RFC4341, RFC5681, RFC9002, RFC9260, and RFC9438.

Thanks for your work done in this document and for addressing my [previous DISCUSS ballot](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccwg/vXz4pQU7D4et8K9RbQWdoBA4cck/)

Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

Like Roman, I am unable to understand how this document is updating all those listed transport protocol RFCs. My best reference was Appendix B which (unfortunately is going to get removed before publication!) holds the text that get the closest to the impact/change. From my reading of that text as someone not familiar with the protocol, it seems like only DCCP (RFC4341) and TCP CC (RFC5681) are really updated and the others have tackled this already?

I've never seen a document that is updating another but not specifically saying what is being updated. Is this covered in some non-obvious way? I would have filed this as something to DISCUSS but I don't know if I would be able to hold such a discussion.

Also, I would expect RFC4341 to have been a normative reference if this document were indeed updating it, but I cannot be sure if it is updating that ...

Section 4.2 (RFC 5681) doesn't name a section, unlike 4.1/4.3/4.4/4.5.
RFC 5681 Section 3.1 is where the slow-start and congestion-avoidance
rules you're amending actually live — naming it would make the set of
five subsections consistent.

Appendix A's Round 4 looks like it wasn't fully updated when the
example was reworked to one-ACK-per-packet: the header still reads
"Received 10 ACKs (N=2000)" but twenty ACK lines follow it, each for
N=1000, and "ACK for 19000" appears twice in a row. Rounds 2 and 3
have the same stale "(N=2000)" in their headers. Given how much of
Appendix A changed between -06 and -08, another pass over it seems
warranted.

Also, since the authors confirmed RFC 7661 is intentionally Informative: the
shepherd write-up's answer to question 17 still calls it "a normative
reference to RFC 7661" — worth a correction so it doesn't mislead whoever
consults it next.

This document’s abstract, but not in the body of the document, asserts that:
 
   This document specifies how transport protocols increase their
   congestion window when the sender is rate-limited, and updates RFC
   4341, RFC 5681, RFC 9002, RFC 9260, and RFC 9438.  

What is not clearly states is how to specifically merge this guidance into the existing text in any of the referenced documents.

I support Mahesh's DISCUSS and the multiple ADs that call out the same thing. The draft needs to specify what text it is updating for each RFC it is updating, or it isn't updating them. I do not see any issues with the technical content of the document once this is straightened out.