Code change:
PADDING frame implement "Probing using padding data", as defined in Section 4.1 of DPLPMTUD. <del> Endpoints SHOULD set the initial value of BASE_PMTU (see Section 5.1 of DPLPMTUD) to be consistent with the minimum QUIC packet size.  The MIN_PLPMTU is the same as the BASE_PMTU. </del> <ins> Endpoints SHOULD set the initial value of BASE_PLPMTU (Section 5.1 of DPLPMTUD) to be consistent with QUIC's smallest allowed maximum datagram size.  The MIN_PLPMTU is the same as the BASE_PLPMTU. </ins> <del> QUIC endpoints implementing DPLPMTUD maintain a maximum packet size (DPLPMTUD MPS) for each combination of local and remote IP addresses. </del> <ins> QUIC endpoints implementing DPLPMTUD maintain a DPLPMTUD Maximum Packet Size (MPS, Section 4.4 of DPLPMTUD) for each combination of local and remote IP addresses.  This corresponds to the maximum datagram size. </ins> 14.3.1. From the perspective of DPLPMTUD, QUIC is an acknowledged <del> packetization layer (PL).  A sender can therefore enter the DPLPMTUD BASE state when the QUIC connection handshake has been completed. </del> <ins> Packetization Layer (PL).  A QUIC sender can therefore enter the DPLPMTUD BASE state (Section 5.2 of DPLPMTUD) when the QUIC connection handshake has been completed. </ins> 14.3.2. <del> QUIC provides an acknowledged PL, therefore a sender does not implement the DPLPMTUD CONFIRMATION_TIMER while in the SEARCH_COMPLETE state; see Section 5.2 of DPLPMTUD. </del> <ins> QUIC is an acknowledged PL, therefore a QUIC sender does not implement a DPLPMTUD CONFIRMATION_TIMER while in the SEARCH_COMPLETE state; see Section 5.2 of DPLPMTUD. </ins> 14.3.3.

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.