Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consolidate connection ID negotiation section with prior text (#1888)

[MikkelFJ <[e-mail]>]

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -926,6 +926,23 @@ them with other connection IDs for the same connection.  As a trivial example,
 this means the same connection ID MUST NOT be issued more than once on the same
 connection.
 
+Packets with long headers include at least two connection IDs, which are used to
+establish the connection IDs that are used for the connection when established,
+see {{negotiating-connection-ids}} for details.

Please consider rewording. The layers of establishment are confusing. Also, are the contained ID's used to establish themselves, or something else? If there are at least two, how many might that be in total, and why?

> @@ -926,6 +926,23 @@ them with other connection IDs for the same connection.  As a trivial example,
 this means the same connection ID MUST NOT be issued more than once on the same
 connection.
 
+Packets with long headers include at least two connection IDs, which are used to
+establish the connection IDs that are used for the connection when established,
+see {{negotiating-connection-ids}} for details.
+
+Packets with short headers ({{short-header}}) only include the Destination
+Connection ID and omit the explicit length.  The length of the Destination
+Connection ID field is expected to be known to endpoints.  Endpoints using a
+connection-ID based load balancer could agree with the load balancer on a fixed

connection-ID -> Connection ID

-- 
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/1888#pullrequestreview-166424664