Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unifying words in recovery draft (#3893)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

@martinthomson approved this pull request.

I think that "toward" is acceptable usage, otherwise, this is good.

> @@ -615,7 +615,7 @@ a packet containing unacknowledged CRYPTO data earlier than the PTO expiry,
 subject to address validation limits; see Section 8.1 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.
 
 Peers can also use coalesced packets to ensure that each datagram elicits at

```suggestion
Endpoints can also use coalesced packets to ensure that each datagram elicits at
```

>    congestion control limits and are considered in-flight.
 
-* PADDING frames cause packets to contribute toward bytes in flight without
+* PADDING frames cause packets to contribute towards bytes in flight without

```suggestion
* PADDING frames cause packets to contribute toward bytes in flight without
```

> @@ -145,10 +145,10 @@ of frames contained in a packet affect recovery and congestion control logic:
   performance of the QUIC handshake and use shorter timers for
   acknowledgement.
 
-* Packets containing frames besides ACK or CONNECTION_CLOSE frames count toward
+* Packets containing frames besides ACK or CONNECTION_CLOSE frames count towards

I think that the original is correct.

```suggestion
* Packets containing frames besides ACK or CONNECTION_CLOSE frames count toward
```

> @@ -615,7 +615,7 @@ a packet containing unacknowledged CRYPTO data earlier than the PTO expiry,
 subject to address validation limits; see Section 8.1 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}.
 
 Peers can also use coalesced packets to ensure that each datagram elicits at
-least one acknowledgement.  For example, clients can coalesce an Initial packet
+least one acknowledgement.  For example, a client can coalesce an Initial packet

I think that "a client" and "a server" are best here.  The previous sentence is general, this is an example and therefore specific.

That said, we are almost certainly hugely inconsistent about addressing requirements to "endpoints" (plural) or "an endpoint" (singular).

-- 
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/3893#pullrequestreview-447822856