IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-04
review-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-04-genart-lc-dunbar-2026-07-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2026-07-10
Requested 2026-06-26
Authors Michael Welzl , Tom Henderson , Gorry Fairhurst , Mohit P. Tahiliani
I-D last updated 2026-07-10 (Latest revision 2026-06-26)
Completed reviews Tsvart Early review of -03 by Lars Eggert (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/58zTCrVOodfHiUrWiuwW0pLChqE
Reviewed revision 04
Result Almost ready
Completed 2026-07-06
review-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-04-genart-lc-dunbar-2026-07-06-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-04
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2026-07-06
IETF LC End Date: 2026-07-10
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document specifies how congestion controlled transport protocols
should increase the congestion window when the sender is rate limited

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
- Appendix B.5.2 says that the text in Section 5.1 of RFC 4341 “is updated by
this document. But the document header says the document updates RFC 5681, RFC
9002, RFC 9260, and RFC 9438. Missing RFC4341. Is it intended?

- Section 2.1 defines both “cwnd-limited” and “rate-limited” as “A TCP flow
...”, Does it mean that the mechanism specified by this document doesn't apply
to QUIC or SCTP flows?

Nits/editorial comments:
- Section 2.1, the references appear malformed:
“{Section 4.5.3 of of ?RFC7661}” and “{Section 3 of ?RFC7661}”.

-Appendix B.1.2: s/perfomed/performed/

-Appendix B.5.2: s/specifing/specifying/

Best Regards,
Linda