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

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:30:28 -0700

The text here was mostly good, and I believe that this is a good place
for that text.  However, some of the text was expository in nature, and
I moved that up to the connection ID definition section.  There is some
new stuff in there, mostly just to point forward to the negotiation
section.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1888

-- Commit Summary --

  * Consolidate connection ID negotiation section with prior text

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (44)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1888.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1888.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/1888

---

From: MikkelFJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:36:41 -0700

mikkelfj 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.

Please consider rewording. The layers of establishment are confusing. Also, are the contained ID's used to establish themselves, or something else? If there are at least two, how many might that be in total, and why?

> @@ -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.
+
+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 using a
+connection-ID based load balancer could agree with the load balancer on a fixed

connection-ID -> Connection ID

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-166424664

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 05:55:47 -0700

dtikhonov commented on this pull request.

I think what was meant here is "Connection ID-based load balancer" (dash between ID and based).  This would look odd because Connection ID is two words.  This can be reworded as "using a load balancer based on Connection IDs."

-- 
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_r226636590

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:48:45 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

e56b38a  Reword based on feedback

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1888/files/6bbfbdfff1303446ab251e038bcb8720ec99e408..e56b38a33a1bc4a6c75f9631b40ab857235a64ab

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:55:39 +0000 (UTC)

MikeBishop approved this pull request.

LGTM.

There can be three in a Retry.

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-166982791

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:18:01 -0700

ianswett commented on this pull request.

How about "Packets with long headers include two connection IDs in the header, which are used.."  If you want to clarify that Retry adds a third used for path verification, that would be better than saying "at least 2"

-- 
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_r227200155

---

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:46:38 -0700

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

"used" is used twice in the sentence, which doesn't reads well. Also agree with @ianswett that it is worth spelling out the Retry case instead of alluding to it.

+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

Run on sentence ("that ... that"). I prefer the earlier construction: "Endpoints using a connection-ID based load balancer could agree with the load	balancer on a fixed or minimum length and on an encoding for connection IDs."

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-167188604

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 22:17:36 -0700

d20f5b5  My ideas for corrections, taking feedback into account

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1888/files/e56b38a33a1bc4a6c75f9631b40ab857235a64ab..d20f5b542ed3374310df3d824453dfb2484e1816

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:18:15 +0000 (UTC)

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

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

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

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:31:27 +0000 (UTC)

ianswett approved this pull request.

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-167453213

---

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:46:06 -0700

janaiyengar approved this pull request.

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-167669115

---

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:46:13 -0700

Merged #1888 into master.

-- 
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#event-1921934261