Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix two instances of "between when" in the transport draft (#3379)

Mike Bishop <> Wed, 22 January 2020 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B4F120227 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:23:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRKP1us95ApY for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98B29120108 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:23:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579713815; bh=rF1yjzZyhUTkOAlv5wiQ58q4AuGJFXSbzL5ZEz/aIU0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jfWyH734BV4AlTMrbqnlXGs9qsXMFQ+mkzziLgw82hCqjWAfcTxQ5jw1NX1wIVU8I p9u8xuGZwEjf/UnOGOitBRj35M9fwkR0SjeRXW63lz5XSis0qNPxqSV0ZaP3mMgxOm 6ylMknodvU7ts3G4v6F9DsV1A8ZLtZIR/GRN7j1o=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3379/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix two instances of "between when" in the transport draft (#3379)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e288517b6144_26313fedc5ccd95c12982d"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:23:38 -0000

MikeBishop approved this pull request.

Not critical, perhaps, but I agree that this is less awkward.

> @@ -1722,12 +1722,12 @@ one.  The client MUST NOT use the token provided in a Retry for future
 connections. Servers MAY discard any Initial packet that does not carry the
 expected token.
-Unlike the token that is created for a Retry packet, there might be some time
-between when the token is created and when the token is subsequently used.
-Thus, a token SHOULD have an expiration time, which could be either an explicit
-expiration time or an issued timestamp that can be used to dynamically calculate
-the expiration time.  A server can store the expiration time or include it in an
-encrypted form in the token.
+Unlike the token that is created for a Retry packet, which is used immediatly,

Unlike the token that is created for a Retry packet, which is used immediately,
Might need rewrapping.

> @@ -3250,15 +3250,15 @@ received packets in preference to packets received in the past.
 ### Measuring and Reporting Host Delay {#host-delay}
-An endpoint measures the delays intentionally introduced between when the
-packet with the largest packet number is received and an acknowledgment is sent.
-The endpoint encodes this delay in the Ack Delay field of an ACK frame
-(see {{frame-ack}}). This allows the receiver of the ACK to adjust for any
-intentional delays, which is important for getting a better estimate of the path
-RTT when acknowledgments are delayed. A packet might be held in the OS kernel or
-elsewhere on the host before being processed.  An endpoint MUST NOT include
-delays that it does not control when populating the Ack Delay field in an
-ACK frame.
+An endpoint measures the delays introduced intentionally between the time

While I concede that "intentionally" would typically follow the verb it modifies, I prefer the old ordering because it avoids confusion about whether the delay was "introduced intentionally" or if the delay introduced is "intentionally between [times]".

An endpoint measures the delays intentionally introduced between the time

The rest of the rewording is independent of this change, and an improvement in my opinion.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: