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

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Sun, 05 January 2020 02:05 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 E79FC120091 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 YzWD6y1yixYL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CDD912008F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A9AA04D7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:05:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZQH4WXILCBFVTTATV4DZ3M3EVBNHHCA4KZJU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314/review/338377490@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/mEauoL2p8wSu_BUY1oJzlPyJhco>
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 02:05:04 -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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314#discussion_r363064929