Original text:
example if many instances of a DTLS time out early and retransmit too quickly on a congested link. <del> Unless implementations have extra information about the round trip time, implementations SHOULD use an initial timer value of 1000 ms and double the value at each retransmission, up to no less than 60 seconds (the RFC 6298 RFC6298 maximum).  Application specific profiles, MAY recommend shorter or longer timer values.  For instance: </del>  Profiles for specific deployment environments, such as in low- power, multi-hop mesh network as used in some Internet of Things

Reviewer comments:
Change the default retransmission timer to 1s and allow people to do otherwise if they have side knowledge. Cap any given flight to 10 recordsDon't re-set the timer to the initial value but to 1.5 times the measured RTT. A bunch more clarity about the reliability algorithms and timers (including changing reset to re-arm)
Thanks for this document -- badly needed and easy to read. Thanks also to Bernard Adoba for his recent tsvart review. I support his comments. COMMENTS: Sec 2. It might be useful to introduce the term "epoch" in the glossary, for those who read this front to back. Sec 4.2.3: "The encrypted sequence number is computed by XORing the leading bytes of the Mask with the sequence number. Decryption is accomplished by the same process." The text is unclear if the XOR is applied to the expanded sequence number or merely the 1-2 octets on the wire. I presume it's the latter, but this should be clarified. Sec 4.2.3: It's implied here that the snkey rotates with the epoch. As this is different from QUIC, it's probably worth spelling out. Sec 5.1 is a bit vague about the amplification limit; why not at least RECOMMEND 3, as we've converged on this elsewhere? Sec 5.1. Reading between the lines, it's clear that the cookie can't be used as address verification across connections in the way that a NEWTOKEN token is. It would be good to spell this out for clients -- use the resumption token or whatever instead. Sec 7.2 "As noted above, the receipt of any record responding to a given flight MUST be taken as an implicit acknowledgement for the entire flight." I think this should be s/entire flight/entire previous flight? Sec 7.2 "Upon receipt of an ACK that leaves it with only some messages from a flight having been acknowledged an implementation SHOULD retransmit the unacknowledged messages or fragments." This language appears inconsistent with Figure 12, where Record 1 has not been acknowledged but is also not retransmitted. It appears there is an implied handling of empty ACKs that isn't written down anywhere in Sec 7.2 Sec 9. Should there be any flow control limits on newconnectionid? Or should receivers be free to simply drop CIDs they can't handle? It might be good to specify. Finally, a really weird one. Reading this document and references to connection ID prompted to me to think how QUIC-LB could apply to DTLS. The result is here: URL Please note the rather unfortunate third-to-last paragraph. I'm happy to take the answer that this use case doesn't matter, since I made it up today. But if it does, it would be very helpful if (1) DTLS 1.3 clients MUST include a connectionid extension in their ClientHello, even if zero length, and/or (2) this draft updated 4.1.4 of 8446 to allow the server to include connectionid in HelloRetryRequest even if the client didn't offer it. Thoughts? NITS: s/select(HandshakeType)/select(msg_type). Though with pseudocode your mileage may vary as to what's clearer. s/consitute/constitute Sec 5.7 In table 1, why include one ACK in the diagram but not the other? It's clear from the note, but the figure is a weird omission.
Addressed in URL
IMO this addresses my DISCUSS, though I'd like Lars's opinion as well. Although ack-induced retransmissions are not formally reducing the send rate, as ekr pointed out the partial ack in itself will usually clear some data, so the added complexity in further limiting the retransmission is probably too much.

Revised text:
example if many instances of a DTLS time out early and retransmit too quickly on a congested link.  <ins> Unless implementations have deployment-specific and/or external information about the round trip time, implementations SHOULD use an initial timer value of 1000 ms and double the value at each retransmission, up to no less than 60 seconds (the RFC 6298 RFC6298 maximum).  Application specific profiles, MAY recommend shorter or longer timer values.  For instance: </ins> Profiles for specific deployment environments, such as in low- power, multi-hop mesh network as used in some Internet of Things