[quicwg/base-drafts] Auth48: Capitalization consistency (Issue #4950)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Mon, 14 February 2022 18:11 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 56C503A08D9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:11:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.576, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 OwchpwtWOVgj for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A1E63A08D7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-25680bd.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-25680bd.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.61]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C6090349F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:11:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1644862302; bh=JdaSTz89jVPKWAGckyESKZHMQ5bh+Vbivs8lQ8Kxx9E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CvU3pSso6hyQNdB27aFs/8zSLgYJjx8DeoC1HY5898HbZ7thUGhfNkZnKVRzYrULU Qi/JZQr8kpSvjVjGimGBhll9VehO/SsKgD8MPU/eMY8vKBwEzPMgyu0Gl7ag420rTv GBHze4WdD/2tpWmCi5Zv9Tx4E3feh3LwQESv4dJE=
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:11:42 -0800
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4LSJKJIHK5SEDQRB6ACZ6F5EVBNHHEHT3AKI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4950@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Auth48: Capitalization consistency (Issue #4950)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_620a9b5eb2539_2427c6fc5556d"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/LB_QSKuvKvWO1KFfTQYg8scmYxc>
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: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:11:47 -0000

Multiple related points (split slightly differently from how the RFC Ed did it):

> Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used 
> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if any 
> updates are necessary.
> 
> - frame payload vs. Frame Payload
> - stream ID vs Stream ID

In general, the intent is to use "stream ID" or "frame payload" (lowercase) to refer to the identifier or payload itself, but "Stream ID" or "Frame Payload" (capitalized) to refer to the name of a field in a frame which carries an identifier or payload.  (Field names are intended to be capitalized in all cases.)  I will review instances of these terms to double-check whether that convention is used correctly throughout.

> Note that the authors of RFC 9000 indicated "stream ID" is correct.  This document introduces "Push ID" - should "stream ID" and "push ID" have the same capitalizaton? 

"Push ID" is deliberately capital, but by parallel with similar terms, it should probably be lowercase except when referring to the actual field.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4950
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4950@github.com>