[quicwg/base-drafts] Definition of "active connection ID" is misleading (or the name is) (#3200)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

In [section 5.1.1](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#rfc.section.5.1.1), we state that:
> An endpoint SHOULD ensure that its peer has a sufficient number of available and unused connection IDs. Endpoints store received connection IDs for future use and advertise the number of connection IDs they are willing to store with the active_connection_id_limit transport parameter. An endpoint SHOULD NOT provide more connection IDs than the peer’s limit.
> 
> An endpoint SHOULD supply a new connection ID when it receives a packet with a previously unused connection ID or when the peer retires one, unless providing the new connection ID would exceed the peer’s limit.

I think that these are correct. However, we also state:
> Connection IDs that are issued and not retired are considered active; any active connection ID can be used.

I think this is incorrect. This should instead state that "Connection IDs that are **unused and** not retired are considered active, ..."

That said, I think the name is confusing, as it is awkward to argue that the connection ID that is currently used is "active."

Maybe we should rename the parameter to something like "spare_connection_id_limit."

-- 
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/issues/3200