Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-02.txt

[Robert Relyea <[e-mail]>]

On 10/01/2019 04:39 AM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Monday, 30 September 2019 15:56:19 CEST Jeremy Harris wrote:
>> On 30/09/2019 14:36, Christopher Wood wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Hubert Kario wrote:
>>>>        Clients must therefore
>>>>        bound the number of parallel connections they initiate by the
>>>>        number of tickets in their possession, or risk ticket re-use.
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a native speaker, but shouldn't it be "...therefore bind the
>>>> number..."?
>>> Yes, we can fix it in the next version.
>> "Bound" reads correctly to me.  You could spell it out in detail
>> if it is thought confusing:
>>
>>    "Clients must therefore not start a number of parallel connections
>>    larger than the number of tickets in their possession"
> "bound" would work also like this:
>
>      "The number of parallel connections the clients can initiate is bound by
>      the number of tickets in their possession."
>
That would be 'is bounded by'

bound as a past participle/adjective of bind means to connect to. (in 
which case you would use bound with)
bound as a verb means to constrain or set limits on, it's past 
participle is bounded.

Maybe we should use Jeremy's construction which avoids the word, since 
it's bound to cause confusion (sorry couldn't resist the pun, as well as 
noting another reason to avoid the word in a spec that has to be parsed 
by non-native speakers;).

bob