Open ianswett opened 1 month ago
Great point. @ianswett or @jbeshay - do you have interest and cycles to take this on? :-) IMHO it would be good to have editorial changes from someone who is familiar with QUIC terminology, so the new text makes sense for both TCP and QUIC.
I was intending to tackle this, but I'm always happy to review someone else's PRs as well.
Great, thanks!
I believe the intent is to be as agnostic to the specific transport as possible, so implementers in QUIC or other transports can implement BBR as well.
Currently the draft has a number of references to TCP and SACK. Some of them are needed for technical accuracy, but others could be removed or changed to more general language.