That would help, but I'd prefer it if this draft didn't explicitly
equate the small packet variant with TFRC-PS, since they're not
really the same thing. A simpler fix would be to delete the text "RFC
3448 refers to this variant of TFRC as TFRC-PS, for applications that
might vary their packet size in response to congestion" from
Section 2.
That would be ok by me.
But in my view, TFRC-PS (with variable packet sizes) *requires*
knowing what is an acceptable sending rate for an application using
a fixed small packet size, and that *requires* answering the questions
raised in this draft.