Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial suggestion against #3313 (#3314)

ekr <notifications@github.com> Sun, 05 January 2020 15:38 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 11E021200D5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 07:38:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 GmEo2bpbs4ND for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 07:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3247912001E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 07:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-cd7bc13.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-cd7bc13.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.102]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838D31C0501 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 07:38:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1578238734; bh=mZjSmiwU+3qzhcOzFzHC63fNS0oFoYtlL/6AwA6cJI4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LKmwabqBPA/sXCG0RFO8I/qmG+hTIZndjeVG5kCJafcDmORnUQpqA302rMZiqaTSm q88Jv/VZz63ANrMw9xSVk6nNyLEcqcv/uJyqGBkVdHw0FafoikXoAgh8aPvCPlaTqc RJ7nOPvrkPOjrtWoIsFhhlmtKmK/fBHCASzzvotY=
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 07:38:54 -0800
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZQF7WAKITTUHEFNAV4D42Y5EVBNHHCA4KZJU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314/review/338407369@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial suggestion against #3313 (#3314)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e12030e74554_72b83fccea4cd96014596f4"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/PYih1iU4q8pyuffGZ6BNoIp8jhM>
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: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 15:38:57 -0000

ekr commented on this pull request.



> @@ -4747,9 +4747,10 @@ QUIC acknowledgements are irrevocable.  Once acknowledged, a packet remains
 acknowledged, even if it does not appear in a future ACK frame.  This is unlike
 TCP SACKs ({{?RFC2018}}).
 
-An ACK frame acknowledges packets in the same packet number space as the packet
-in which it is contained.  As such, the same packet number can be acknowledged
-in different packet number spaces.
+The same packet number might be used to identify packets from multiple packet
+number spaces. An acknowledgement for a packet therefore needs to indicate both
+its packet number and its packet number space.  An ACK frame acknowledges packet
+numbers in the same space as the packet in which the ACK frame is contained.

These three sentences are kind of hard to connect.

Perhaps:
"An acknowledgment for a packet needs to indicate both its packet number and its packet number space, which is accomplished by having each ACK frame only acknowledge packet numbers..."


-- 
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/3314#pullrequestreview-338407369