This address a comment made by @mjoras in issue #79. The changes do not address the core of the issue, revising the section "designing for latency", but solves the incidental comment Surely "error recovery" should be "loss recovery" since losses aren't really "errors" in the common sense of the word.
This address a comment made by @mjoras in issue #79. The changes do not address the core of the issue, revising the section "designing for latency", but solves the incidental comment Surely "error recovery" should be "loss recovery" since losses aren't really "errors" in the common sense of the word.