Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Second set of editorial nits (#3770)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:43:07 -0700

@gorryfair had some useful feedback in #3735.

This doesn&#39;t address the following items as numbered in the issue:

(2) Because the fix to (1) seems adequate by my reckoning.  That
addresses the question of considering the impact on other network users.

(6) This doesn&#39;t appear to be a problem.  It might be a formatting
issue, with the URL not appearing.

(7) This is addressed in the recent draft by adding [Section
10.2.2](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#name-deferring-idle-timeout)

(9) and (11) I can&#39;t find the rendering glitch mentioned.

The rest of these are good.

Closes #3735.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3770

-- Commit Summary --

  * Second set of editorial nits

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (30)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3770.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3770.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/3770

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:55:01 -0700

@gorryfair commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3551,7 +3553,7 @@ too large. A receiver can discard unacknowledged ACK Ranges to limit ACK frame
 size, at the cost of increased retransmissions from the sender. This is
 necessary if an ACK frame would be too large to fit in a packet, however
 receivers MAY also limit ACK frame size further to preserve space for other
-frames.
+frames or to limit the bandwidth that acknowledgments consume.

Is /bandwidth/capacity/ ?

-- 
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/3770#pullrequestreview-432242661

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:59:18 -0700

Fine and thanks for looking to these.

I do think something more needs to be said about the need to avoid collateral impact on the forward traffic of this and other traffic sharing a path. To me this really important in an IETF Transport specification, especially one that might displace TCP.
/It can also improve connection throughput on severely asymmetric links; see Section 3 of {{?RFC3449}}./ 

To me, a note to make sure this isn't ignored would seem enough, but I'd be happy to take this up as a separate WGLC comment if that seems better.

-- 
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/3770#issuecomment-645277963

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:21:20 -0700

Let's take that up separately.  I don't object to the language, but I just didn't know what to say.

-- 
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/3770#issuecomment-645711820

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:21:58 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

8f453ff92b9ba3439c654c5b2681c3ddc7d5a399  Capacity

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3770/files/9719e067e90469dad09c0bf3d6e86bc1e10c37cb..8f453ff92b9ba3439c654c5b2681c3ddc7d5a399

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:08:15 -0700

@janaiyengar approved this pull request.

Let's get these in and deal with more specific issues separately.

> @@ -3463,9 +3464,10 @@ the IP header SHOULD be acknowledged immediately, to reduce the peer's response
 time to congestion events.
 
 The algorithms in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}} are expected to be resilient to receivers
-that do not follow guidance offered above. However, an implementer should only
+that do not follow guidance offered above. However, an endpoint should only

```suggestion
that do not follow guidance offered above. However, an implementation should only
```

```suggestion
necessary if an ACK frame would be too large to fit in a packet.
Receivers MAY also limit ACK frame size further to preserve space for other
```

-- 
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/3770#pullrequestreview-433676406

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:00:12 -0700

1ec60fab50a84aa0f50c68fce3de8e700587d038  These need wrapping :|

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3770/files/8f453ff92b9ba3439c654c5b2681c3ddc7d5a399..1ec60fab50a84aa0f50c68fce3de8e700587d038

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:00:47 -0700

5270a60a884891607a2d8012bcd7bc6ee4f5f3c4  Wrap

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3770/files/1ec60fab50a84aa0f50c68fce3de8e700587d038..5270a60a884891607a2d8012bcd7bc6ee4f5f3c4

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:00:56 -0700

Merged #3770 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/3770#event-3460856666