Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccwg-rfc5033bis-06
review-ietf-ccwg-rfc5033bis-06-artart-lc-turner-2024-07-03-00

Hi! I know almost nothing about congestion control but I know these two authors
know a lot about it :)

Just a couple of questions and a couple of nits follow.

Questions:

s3.2: This section includes the following:

 This document applies to proposals for congestion control algorithms
 that seek Experimental or Standards Track status.

So ... if I get an Informational RFC I can do whatever I want? Wondering why
Informational isn't listed here.

s5.3.2: The 1st para invokes some RFC 6919 like requirements language like
"ought to" and "it would be helpful". Any reason there isn't BCP 1 4language
used in this para?

s6: Is "MUST find" another way of saying there must be coommunity consensus? 
If so maybe:

OLD:

 Unless a proposed congestion control specification
 explicitly forbids use on the public Internet, the community MUST
 find that it meets the criteria in these scenarios for the proposed
 congestion control algorithm to progress.

NEW:

 Unless a proposed congestion control specification
 explicitly forbids use on the public Internet, the community MUST
 reach consensus that it meets the criteria in these scenarios for the proposed
 congestion control algorithm to progress.

Nits:

s5.1.3, 2nd para: expand BDP.

s7.9, lastt para: s/(see Section 4./(see Section 4).