Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Massive batch of probably-editorial nits (#3805)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

@MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> @@ -357,7 +357,6 @@ Within each type, streams are created with numerically increasing stream IDs.  A
 stream ID that is used out of order results in all streams of that type with
 lower-numbered stream IDs also being opened.
 
-The first bidirectional stream opened by the client has a stream ID of 0.

I've adjusted the preceding paragraph to note that each stream space begins at the minimum value and increases monotonically, since that's effectively what we're trying to communicate here.

> @@ -1165,9 +1155,9 @@ discarded if they indicate a different protocol version than that of the
 connection, or if the removal of packet protection is unsuccessful once the
 expected keys are available.
 
-Invalid packets without packet protection, such as Initial, Retry, or Version
-Negotiation, MAY be discarded.  An endpoint MUST generate a connection error if
-it commits changes to state before discovering an error.
+Invalid packets without effective confidentiality protection, such as Initial,

Reverted and opened #3887.

> @@ -2496,9 +2478,8 @@ ensure connection stability. This section describes the protocol for migrating a
 connection to a preferred server address.
 
 Migrating a connection to a new server address mid-connection is left for future
-work. If a client receives packets from a new server address not indicated by
-the preferred_address transport parameter, the client SHOULD discard these
-packets.
+work. If a client receives packets from a new server address when the client has
+not initiated a migration, the client SHOULD discard these packets.

Tightened scope a bit.

>  
 To reduce the chances of misinterpreting congestive loss as packets dropped by a
 faulty network element, an endpoint could set the ECT(0) codepoint for only the
 first ten outgoing packets on a path, or for a period of three RTTs, whichever
 occurs first.
 
 Other methods of probing paths for ECN support are possible, as are different
-marking strategies. Implementations MAY use other methods defined in RFCs; see
-{{?RFC8311}}. Implementations that use the ECT(1) codepoint need to perform ECN
-validation using ECT(1) counts.
+marking strategies. Implementations MAY use other methods; see {{?RFC8311}}.

Okay; reverted.

> @@ -4008,8 +3992,8 @@ off-path injection as specified in {{!RFC8201}} and Section 5.2 of {{!RFC8085}}.
 This validation SHOULD use the quoted packet supplied in the payload of an ICMP
 message to associate the message with a corresponding transport connection (see
 Section 4.6.1 of {{!DPLPMTUD}}).  ICMP message validation MUST include matching
-IP addresses and UDP ports {{!RFC8085}} and, when possible, connection IDs to an
-active QUIC session.  The endpoint SHOULD ignore all ICMP messages that fail
+IP addresses and UDP ports ({{!RFC8085}}) and, when possible, connection IDs to

I'm unclear on what makes them different.  I've been using the distinction that where the reference is explicitly part of the sentence ("defined in {{ref}}") it doesn't need parentheses, but when it's just dropping a reference mid-sentence ("UDP {{ref}} tells us that") then it is parenthetical.  But yes, we should decide on something uniform and reconcile.

-- 
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/3805#discussion_r452261627