Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QPACK [editorial] update RIC and Base on figures (#2935)

Bence Béky <> Thu, 15 August 2019 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0ED1200F1 for <>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.595
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.595 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, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 07JMJmlOVNU0 for <>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52D971200EC for <>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:34:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1565883240; bh=jJr1Xg8uEXQHcHWmj9+xvt+2q4r5ce+zfWgbSc4z40o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0lFm7k7gHZGs71Ru/SyqGVprgrJhyvvmJz/OknlehAROJ7N/PM7p5VAzP/kfMFiCd sU+s5DVuRks09Klp04klZOdNG9idDTYOaziSam7GYLTNBMaeG5ReS6+qTMOGz08f60 Q1AQuTnQ4bk6ulp5Dczr6l/LRcD02FwB1sQrEysA=
From: Bence Béky <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2935/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QPACK [editorial] update RIC and Base on figures (#2935)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d557b68705ca_564b3fa8120cd95c37269"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: bencebeky
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:34:22 -0000

While I understand the argument outlined in the blog post @MikeBishop linked above, and would not be unhappy if that was the widespread convention, I am worried that this is not the mental model that most engineers share.  I think the index--element bijection is the general convention, and deviating from that might cause confusion.

A particular source of confusion arising in this situation even for people used to the "indices point between elments" convention is that on the two figures in question, indices increase to the left. 
 Therefore the element with a given index is not the one on the right of the arrow, but the one on the left, breaking the rule of thumb mentioned in the blog post.

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