IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Massive batch of probably-editorial nits (#3805)

Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com> Sat, 11 July 2020 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5E23A0F85 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 06:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14kx30TlhSqF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 06:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-14.smtp.github.com (out-14.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 566633A0F84 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 06:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c73936b.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c73936b.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.112.13]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0FD120BEA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 06:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594475948; bh=QrLzZbShelgWTGiXzrlG9cDQEFFpJ20yd/sm1KXIStY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LAI0ZN/6nzO+1cyFZ7ftHJkr3UQZB+ia6GWlJCj9kyARkRRzJd0ITK/BbHLMx5Z1t ePPWMEVrtWpxOoEaQoCM3oQeEiq6dxeypawJMmMml3io22MCdx47Hfs7T4S9Y0ijI9 +mkVh57ntz2SHbLH6deMmB9TeZThtCZ+RoLVs3zs=
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 06:59:08 -0700
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2ZKVETRPELKGBIQNV5CWTKZEVBNHHCNKDJHI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3805/review/446804452@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3805@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3805@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Massive batch of probably-editorial nits (#3805)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f09c5ac7361e_47413fa0558cd964330924"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: dtikhonov
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/4VvektlULqUeD2jtFoZZHy9ihNo>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 13:59:11 -0000

@dtikhonov commented on this pull request.



>  
 Client:
 
 : The endpoint initiating a QUIC connection.
 
 Server:
 
-: The endpoint accepting incoming QUIC connections.
+: The endpoint accepting an incoming QUIC connection.

You are right: nothing in the server role mandates that the server accept more than one connection.  On the other hand, in the majority of cases, from literature to practical implementations, a server does accept more than one connection.  Hence, my own mental model is that of "one server, many clients."  I predict this model is shared by the majority of readers, which is why I dislike the proposed change in wording.

This is not to say that the new version is bad; it is just worse in comparison.  The former definition causes less mental load because it fits the mental model.

While we are on this sentence: perhaps drop "incoming?"

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3805#discussion_r453197698

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email