Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Consolidate connection ID negotiation section with prior text (#1888)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -926,6 +926,23 @@ them with other connection IDs for the same connection.  As a trivial example,
 this means the same connection ID MUST NOT be issued more than once on the same
 connection.
 
+Packets with long headers include at least two connection IDs, which are used to
+establish the connection IDs that are used for the connection when established,
+see {{negotiating-connection-ids}} for details.

Not at this point in the document; this is too soon for that.  Tweaked.

> @@ -926,6 +926,23 @@ them with other connection IDs for the same connection.  As a trivial example,
 this means the same connection ID MUST NOT be issued more than once on the same
 connection.
 
+Packets with long headers include at least two connection IDs, which are used to
+determine the connection IDs that are used for the connection when established,
+see {{negotiating-connection-ids}} for details.
+
+Packets with short headers ({{short-header}}) only include the Destination
+Connection ID and omit the explicit length.  The length of the Destination
+Connection ID field is expected to be known to endpoints.  Endpoints that use a
+load balancer that routes based on connection ID could agree with the load

It has all the problems already highlighted, plus the precedence of the "or" and "and" toward the end is unclear.  I've tweaked again.

-- 
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/1888#discussion_r227227604