Code change:
14. <del> The QUIC packet size includes the QUIC header and protected payload, but not the UDP or IP headers. </del> <ins> A UDP datagram can include one or more QUIC packets.  The datagram size refers to the total UDP payload size of a single UDP datagram carrying QUIC packets.  The datagram size includes one or more QUIC packet headers and protected payloads, but not the UDP or IP headers. The maximum datagram size is defined as the largest size of UDP payload that can be sent across a network path using a single UDP datagram. </ins> QUIC depends upon a minimum IP packet size of at least 1280 bytes. This is the IPv6 minimum size (IPv6) and is also supported by most <del> modern IPv4 networks.  Assuming the minimum IP header size, this results in a QUIC maximum packet size of 1232 bytes for IPv6 and 1252 bytes for IPv4. </del> <ins> modern IPv4 networks.  Assuming the minimum IP header size of 40 bytes for IPv6 and 20 bytes for IPv4 and a UDP header size of 8 bytes, this results in a maximum datagram size of 1232 bytes for IPv6 and 1252 bytes for IPv4. The maximum datagram size MUST be at least 1200 bytes. </ins> <del> The QUIC maximum packet size is the largest size of QUIC packet that can be sent across a network path using a single packet.  Any maximum packet size larger than 1200 bytes can be discovered using Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD; see pmtud) or Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD; see dplpmtud). </del> <ins> Any maximum datagram size larger than 1200 bytes can be discovered using Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD; see pmtud) or Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD; see dplpmtud). </ins> Enforcement of the max_udp_payload_size transport parameter (transport-parameter-definitions) might act as an additional limit on <del> the maximum packet size.  A sender can avoid exceeding this limit, </del> <ins> the maximum datagram size.  A sender can avoid exceeding this limit, </ins> once the value is known.  However, prior to learning the value of the transport parameter, endpoints risk datagrams being lost if they send <del> packets larger than the smallest allowed maximum packet size of 1200 bytes. </del> <ins> datagrams larger than the smallest allowed maximum datagram size of 1200 bytes. </ins> UDP datagrams MUST NOT be fragmented at the IP layer.  In IPv4 (IPv4), the DF bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent fragmentation

Related discussion:
text: Addresses . NAME points out in that we use in the transport draft and in the recovery draft. In reading carefully, I realized that in the transport draft was actually historical, and is the more appropriate term. This is an entirely editorial PR, and it's largely simple changes, despite the fact that it looks a bit big. It is a bit subtle though. Sorry about that.
This issue will list a number of minor editorial things that should be checked and likely addressed with some editorial fixes: Section 5.3: "These delays are computed using the ACK Delay field of the ACK frame as described in Section 19.3 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]." This text implies that the computation of the delay is described in Section 19.3 of QUIC-TRANSPORT. However, I don't think it is described the calculation, only the definition of the field. Please reformulate to imply only field definition not calculation. Section 5.3: "On the first RTT sample for the network path, that sample is used as rttsample. This ensures that the first measurement erases the history of any persisted or default values." I think this intended to cover cases where path changes are detected. But it is not well expressed. Does this need a reformulation and a reference into QUIC-TRANSPORT where it states when such a reset should occur? Section 6.1: "Either its packet number is kPacketThreshold smaller than an acknowledged packet" Nitpicking, assuming no PN gaps in transmission. Does that need a note? Section 6.2.4: "An endpoint MAY send up to two full-sized datagrams containing ack-eliciting packets, to avoid an expensive consecutive PTO expiration due to a single lost datagram or transmit data from multiple packet number spaces." This last part, I assume intended to generate additional datagrams to prevent single loss to impact. However, due to coalescing this is unclear in this context. Section 7: "Endpoints can unilaterally choose a different algorithm to use, such as Cubic ([RFC8312])." I think this sentence should be explicit that in needs to be sender-based algorithms. I think we need to have the requirement on performing congestion control on the sender unless there has been explicit agreement with the receiver that they will do it.