Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might be misunderstood as an ordering requirement (2) (#4039)
Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com> Thu, 20 August 2020 18:53 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 95B583A12EE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, 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 4nXccyF1Thgc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 336123A12FB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.62]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269895C092F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1597949633; bh=N1lYif19iwx13PiB7pl/uVZ/wcMBmFiKDMryo4fbN0Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=K3GRqfLNn7hWIF4Une46+jSzZNisJGF2onPCHS/5k6RYQMb5vcbu8uFFUT+b2f8iK ZXayMd6JkQcoZtuHkN4MpzYnGekdupvCgb2ghVHqwdQuqXEOsuOxri6fM+5vYokrmq ytLuEY/QbThStMWbgiccxE5oIDDeqSSgWHAfalOk=
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:53:53 -0700
From: Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7H74AA6DRHP5M73TN5JKT4DEVBNHHCRLVK7Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4039/677838558@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4039@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4039@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might be misunderstood as an ordering requirement (2) (#4039)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3ec6c116fae_550c1964995550"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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/JtzxK_EndqBl9J8nff3jXcyQpRI>
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: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:54:02 -0000
That works for me - starting with the construction seems clear. Gorry > On 20 Aug 2020, at 19:11, Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > > "in order to" seems like a well-known construction, so I'm not concerned about its existence. Your rewording loses the implication of "SHOULD... because you'll need to...." > > Though I see your point that this sentence could be parsed as "reading in order" being the thing servers SHOULD be able to do. Perhaps "In order to properly form X, servers SHOULD Y"? > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. -- 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/4039#issuecomment-677838558
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might be m… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might … Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might … Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might … Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might … Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use of "in order" might … Gorry Fairhurst