Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial suggestion against #3313 (#3314)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 19:01:28 -0800

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> @@ -4747,9 +4747,10 @@ QUIC acknowledgements are irrevocable.  Once acknowledged, a packet remains
 acknowledged, even if it does not appear in a future ACK frame.  This is unlike
 TCP SACKs ({{?RFC2018}}).
 
-An ACK frame acknowledges packets in the same packet number space as the packet
-in which it is contained.  As such, the same packet number can be acknowledged
-in different packet number spaces.
+A packet number can be used in multiple packet number spaces. An acknowledgement

This runs afoul of the essential complaint in Dmitri's issue, namely that "packet number" refers to the scoped identifier (and not an unadorned numeric value).  

You might instead say:

```suggestion
The same numeric value might be used to identify packets from multiple packet number spaces. An acknowledgement
```

-- 
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/3314#pullrequestreview-337521523

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:55:49 -0800

ianswett commented on this pull request.

With MTs suggestion, I prefer #3313 

-- 
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/3314#pullrequestreview-337854118

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 18:05:01 -0800

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

I don't agree. A packet number refers to the numeric value, does it not? I don't think changing it to "numeric value" makes a difference, it seems to be just another way to say the same thing. I do like the second part of your change, so I'll take that: "The same packet number might be used to identify packets from ..."

It seems perfectly reasonably to say that a packet number can be reused. We currently say that it "will be" reused, which is obviously incorrect. That is what I read Dmitri's issues to be.

-- 
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/3314#discussion_r363064929

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 18:07:09 -0800

@janaiyengar pushed 1 commit.

5b3aacbc516a4a21b4da6fd9596eeede32cd3b93  mt's suggestion

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3314/files/0b8f561b911138f204ff9c6ea0bd28811b476ea9..5b3aacbc516a4a21b4da6fd9596eeede32cd3b93

---

From: ekr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 07:38:54 -0800

ekr commented on this pull request.

-An ACK frame acknowledges packets in the same packet number space as the packet
-in which it is contained.  As such, the same packet number can be acknowledged
-in different packet number spaces.
+The same packet number might be used to identify packets from multiple packet
+number spaces. An acknowledgement for a packet therefore needs to indicate both
+its packet number and its packet number space.  An ACK frame acknowledges packet
+numbers in the same space as the packet in which the ACK frame is contained.

These three sentences are kind of hard to connect.

Perhaps:
"An acknowledgment for a packet needs to indicate both its packet number and its packet number space, which is accomplished by having each ACK frame only acknowledge packet numbers..."

-- 
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/3314#pullrequestreview-338407369

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:54:19 -0800

Edits made to #3313, closing this one in favor of that.

-- 
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/3314#issuecomment-571827959

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:54:23 -0800

Closed #3314.

-- 
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/3314#event-2929441912