Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial suggestion against #3313 (#3314)

Jana Iyengar <> Sun, 05 January 2020 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79FC120091 for <>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 YzWD6y1yixYL for <>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CDD912008F for <>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A9AA04D7 for <>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578189901; bh=uuWR8GdOi3ZSxEAVbYGTKzJInetY54xdnm9YSjwtC7M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LhvwNBHfcXfTkTh9ew+NxEIKBeV/WhTVQGj/RIU26rNveNhrLGm6cR8IMMGQPa4mL IAV3Wgv8pFxYUP9Negum1w+itOGq1Zqk3EKztVXdPby8Kd1FAxb2w+GTxXh2bpkGv7 p5RziO7x6Hathp1c3q1wYQRHUZDO0JE2wVW8TcxY=
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 18:05:01 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial suggestion against #3313 (#3314)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e11444d60d62_23e43ff2adacd96c96670"; 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
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: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 02:05:04 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

> @@ -4747,9 +4747,10 @@ QUIC acknowledgements are irrevocable.  Once acknowledged, a packet remains
 acknowledged, even if it does not appear in a future ACK frame.  This is unlike
 TCP SACKs ({{?RFC2018}}).
-An ACK frame acknowledges packets in the same packet number space as the packet
-in which it is contained.  As such, the same packet number can be acknowledged
-in different packet number spaces.
+A packet number can be used in multiple packet number spaces. An acknowledgement

I don't agree. A packet number refers to the numeric value, does it not? I don't think changing it to "numeric value" makes a difference, it seems to be just another way to say the same thing. I do like the second part of your change, so I'll take that: "The same packet number might be used to identify packets from ..."

It seems perfectly reasonably to say that a packet number can be reused. We currently say that it "will be" reused, which is obviously incorrect. That is what I read Dmitri's issues to be.

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