IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Incorrect values for Required Insert Count (#3305)

Bence Béky <notifications@github.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 15:20 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 F29013A0A3C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:20:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 V4CNSNVyvy2C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C02D73A1966 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:20:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1582903240; bh=WAwNjSGTXRRaygO4awscA3lQWWE/wrmS3xcvsUIXSwI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=NMB+rm+jWgs3cI1b7QH8BwA0rQmW5kxJSILQOdym9bCpotWlYLB+bV1+dHyM9bk2g QXA76DcPn9kSq/IY1qvn/7yshV0gMNDOboriFIprBOBdoAJQLvn6f2RTAKIAWPSVyb ln/ZNQ/fhNPtbMtyY5del1eMDOI9xJek5KI11g1k=
From: Bence Béky <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7HWK5LDB6WLHJ57PF4MZREREVBNHHCAH5LIA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3305/592559738@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3305@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3305@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Incorrect values for Required Insert Count (#3305)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e592fc89b95d_64463fb007ccd96c95310"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/n_TsPw163OHoLGxwf_Vj5bz578g>
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:20:43 -0000

> 
> Which part is obtuse? Should I replace '...the value defined in Section 2.1.3.' and '...smaller/larger than expected' with a restatement of the expected values? I'm pretty sure it used to say that and we changed it to this. Or would moving it to another section make it easier to find?
> 

I created issue #3487 to see what such a restatement would look like.  For the record, I do not think this is necessary, as I do not find this paragraph ambigous, but of course this does not mean that a software developer new to QPACK would be able to immediately understand it.

Moving it to another section, like to 2.1.3 (within the encoder section), might help the text flow better.  However, since this paragraph is discussing requirements on the decoder, the subsection where it is right now is probably the most suitable one.

-- 
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/issues/3305#issuecomment-592559738

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email