IETF Logo Mail Archive

[quicwg/base-drafts] RFC Editor comment 10 (Issue #4976)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Fri, 25 March 2022 17:40 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 1CA573A0DE6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 SiCinmEjK2dY for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC8063A174B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c73936b.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c73936b.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.112.13]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B79E0A9D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1648230031; bh=G94IbIx24DgK+wZ7IHWBQ26WV1oln5hh+PNalm0mAR0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Gpv6sxDoramS2DQtHCiP6QTMsCdskUYyTFT8+QQjcTZeCkO2ir87ZIyRvRBkBne+T vkwbrTMNbROk+nI6UkyyQBGIA8zzkJV1/Jd4H1UydjcQJNmXLzQhlE7ZEVtni24IJK A/fy2jOiQ/dMSGi5HvRZvqWcQcdxaaAxKlG+B3wE=
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:40:30 -0700
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5EUTPHLV4H4QHOC2GAJMYQ5EVBNHHEMZM6NE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4976@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] RFC Editor comment 10 (Issue #4976)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_623dfe8ee994c_13dec6fc1498120"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/wWNcZXSFGJ-4JFAgDo8JYaRi7gk>
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, 25 Mar 2022 17:40:38 -0000

We had the following questions related to the terminology
used in this document.

a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used 
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.  

base vs. Base
post-base vs. Post Base
length vs. Length
delta vs. Delta Base

b) We have updated the following terminology to use the form on the right consistently to match what we feel was the intended use.  Please review and let us know any objections.

Instruction / instruction (e.g., Insert Count Increment instructions)

c) We see the use of both "single pass" and "one pass" in this
document.  Please review if these should be made uniform.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4976
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4976@github.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email