IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK frames PN space editorial (#3313)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Sun, 05 January 2020 02:14 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 E658F120091 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:14:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 k8QizCqOEmCE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34B6E12008F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:14:33 -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 56E306E0035 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:14:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1578190472; bh=VINiHDhFMVA+b08Vypm0tsEM737EgGxoePRdUTovS9w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UK4QId8ZcXWoImnlw0dh8JEATWJql/IGFC1loQJ82TN3gxUwK+oPGxqMHuRgCGqx1 6kLXI7as/8gZScjWSyg0SnOm16u1b+tJfA2Xum68IwE2jFU+VxwnU61UwP8P18kDHx DEDYnsJW/EQXfK6SImLXYh+k85lMfFbmVZCixHxs=
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 18:14:32 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK67R4AEVX3MC6A3ASN4DZ4QREVBNHHCA3E5IY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3313/c570837550@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3313@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3313@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK frames PN space editorial (#3313)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e11468846d6e_73613fccea4cd9601109617"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/_F62-2s8h2eNWRDwWoE5iPbk03c>
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 02:14:35 -0000

I have an editorial disagreement here, but as with all such disagreements, I'm happy to go with whatever more people think reads better.

I find this use of "numeric value" to be unnecessary. Making it implicit (which is what this sentence is doing) doesn't really change the way a reader consumes this sentence. As a reader, I will replace "numeric value" with "packet number"; there isn't a different definition for packet number that is anything more than the numeric value.

At a minimum, I would swap the order of the two sentences.

-- 
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/3313#issuecomment-570837550

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email