Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Renumber frames (#1945)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 20:26:02 -0700

For rationale, see [this spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G73qp-GBhXGyKEsZBudzWJY85FSa5txT4MxtVC5ajiE/edit#gid=0)

Note that this isn't 100% mechanical.  There are some other minor
changes:

Frames with multiple codepoints are not referred to in the plural in
their first mention (because we talk about multiple frame types), and
ahead of the figure that shows the fields.

I have made the text announcing the figure, and the text announcing the
fields consistent.

There was a grammatical error (the very last change here).
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1945

-- Commit Summary --

  * Renumber frames

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (1098)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1945.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1945.diff

-- 
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/1945

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 20:30:39 -0700

marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2698,24 +2698,24 @@ frames are explained in more detail in {{frame-formats}}.
 | Type Value  | Frame Type Name      | Definition                     |
 |:------------|:---------------------|:-------------------------------|
 | 0x00        | PADDING              | {{frame-padding}}              |

Considering that CONNECTION_CLOSE has a frame type field, where 0x0 means that the error is not frame related, wouldn't it make sense to not use 0x0 at all for frames.

-- 
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/1945#pullrequestreview-170546138