Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] editorial: value for kGranularity (recovery) (#3388)

From: mirjak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:12:00 -0800

This was only defined normatively in the appendix.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3388

-- Commit Summary --

  * editorial: value for kGranularity (recovery)

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md (3)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3388.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3388.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/3388

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:27:15 -0800

This is arguably a normative change, and I wonder if this isn't short-sighted in some way...

-- 
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/3388#issuecomment-577907503

---

From: mirjak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 01:16:17 -0800

This normative statement is already in the appendix. Just repeating it here.

-- 
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/3388#issuecomment-578051156

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 02:48:54 -0800

Appendices aren't normative.

-- 
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/3388#issuecomment-578080945

---

From: mirjak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 03:02:52 -0800

I don't think that's an official "rule". If the appendix contains normative language that's normative. However, the recommendation is to not sure normative language in the appendix and I would also recommend here that the normative language should be removed from the appendix (that's why I think this part should be move to the body).

-- 
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/3388#issuecomment-578085188

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 03:19:33 -0800

Those are pretty clearly examples.  The lead-in says "example implementation "

-- 
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/3388#issuecomment-578090539

---

From: mirjak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:03:33 -0800

Then we shouldn't use normative language in these examples and we need to decide for a normative recommendation for kGranularity, or at least some discussion about sensible values.

-- 
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/3388#issuecomment-578166916