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

[janaiyengar <[e-mail]>]

janaiyengar 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.

"used" is used twice in the sentence, which doesn't reads well. Also agree with @ianswett that it is worth spelling out the Retry case instead of alluding to it.


> @@ -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
+determine 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 that use a
+load balancer that routes based on connection ID could agree with the load

Run on sentence ("that ... that"). I prefer the earlier construction: "Endpoints using a connection-ID based load balancer could agree with the load	balancer on a fixed or minimum length and on an encoding for connection IDs."

-- 
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-167188604