Original text:
also required to include a statement in the abstract describing environments where the protocol is not recommended for deployment. There can be environments where the congestion control algorith is <del> deemed _safe_ for use, but it is still is not _recommended_ for use because it does not perform well for the user. </del>  As examples of such statements, RFC3649 specifying HighSpeed TCP includes a statement in the abstract stating that the proposed congestion control algorithm is Experimental, but may be deployed in <del> the current Internet.  In contrast, the Quick-Start document RFC4782 includes a paragraph in the abstract stating the mechanism is only being proposed for use in controlled environments.  The abstract specifies environments where the Quick-Start request could give false positives (and therefore would be unsafe for incremental deployment where some routers forward, but do not process the option).  The abstract also specifies environments where packets containing the Quick-Start request could be dropped in the network; in such an environment, Quick-Start would not be unsafe to deploy, but deployment would not be recommended because it could lead to unnecessary delays for the connections attempting to use Quick-Start. The Quick-Start method is discussed as an example in RFC9049. Alhough out of the scope of this document, a proponent of a new </del>  algorithm could alternatively seek publication as an Informational or Experimental RFC via the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  In general, these algorithms are expected to be less mature than ones

Reviewer comments:
Make it clear this is about guidelines for authors, not status of this document avoid redundant guidance avoid "subjective" guidance such as "believes"
thanks

Revised text:
also required to include a statement in the abstract describing environments where the protocol is not recommended for deployment. There can be environments where the congestion control algorith is  <ins> deemed _safe_ for use, but it is still is _not recommended_ for use because it does not perform well for the user RFC8890. </ins> As examples of such statements, RFC3649 specifying HighSpeed TCP includes a statement in the abstract stating that the proposed congestion control algorithm is Experimental, but may be deployed in  <ins> the Internet.  In contrast, the Quick-Start document RFC4782 includes a paragraph in the abstract stating that the mechanism is only being proposed for use in controlled environments.  The abstract specifies environments where the Quick-Start request could give false positives (and therefore would be unsafe for incremental deployment where some routers forward, but do not process the option).  The abstract also specifies environments where packets containing the Quick-Start request could be dropped in the network; in such an environment, Quick-Start would not be unsafe to deploy, but deployment would not be recommended because it could lead to unnecessary delays for the connections attempting to use Quick-Start.  The Quick-Start method is discussed as an example in RFC9049. Alhough out of the scope of this document, proponents of a new </ins> algorithm could alternatively seek publication as an Informational or Experimental RFC via the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  In general, these algorithms are expected to be less mature than ones