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

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 02 January 2020 03:01 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 2317712004C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:01:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_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: 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 7zFzD5_Lg1ot for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3979120046 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.64]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF0A2C0A42 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:01:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1577934088; bh=rjF7z1ecLVuz0Dk64mYJBSEWOJZ/JdF7ueWA2MwW7tg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=W5vTNvGX1qpoLeYU2RGqiZagZySCJBrD/YgftOgBQqb1BDULotebrHl99/BKTlNIJ 5maZNNL37uHxuNd0pOBgw8ai8k/rVIaEivV3JxaiRcBXTEhaozvv3TwtN1faITEP05 4M0MBl82hsafn0Ru3BjWJR9d8IdkYorme2jisRRg=
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 19:01:28 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5GCLWBVOMUVBADJON4DKHYPEVBNHHCA4KZJU@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/337521523@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_5e0d5d08175d_1db23f8802acd96415036"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/nfuat3r2G_aP_YDFf3xzTvYNGtc>
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: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 03:01:30 -0000

martinthomson 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

This runs afoul of the essential complaint in Dmitri's issue, namely that "packet number" refers to the scoped identifier (and not an unadorned numeric value).  

You might instead say:

```suggestion
The same numeric value might be used to identify packets from multiple packet number spaces. An acknowledgement
```



-- 
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#pullrequestreview-337521523