Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add frames, not packets (#3872)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:19:11 -0700

This uses positive framing for the recommendation to use frames rather
than packets.  And it makes that recommendation directly, rather than
implying it.

Closes #3850.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3872

-- Commit Summary --

  * Add frames, not packets

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (5)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3872.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3872.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/3872

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:54:11 -0700

@marten-seemann 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/3872#pullrequestreview-444496765

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:20:25 -0700

@MikeBishop 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/3872#pullrequestreview-445818818

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:21:03 -0700

@MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3187,8 +3187,9 @@ Coalescing packets in order of increasing encryption levels (Initial, 0-RTT,
 Handshake, 1-RTT; see Section 4.1.4 of {{QUIC-TLS}}) makes it more likely the
 receiver will be able to process all the packets in a single pass. A packet
 with a short header does not include a length, so it can only be the last
-packet included in a UDP datagram. An endpoint SHOULD NOT coalesce multiple
-packets at the same encryption level.
+packet included in a UDP datagram. An endpoint SHOULD include multiple frames in
+a single packet rather than coalesce multiple packets at the same encryption

Something feels awkward about the wording here, but I'm not coming up with anything better off-hand.

-- 
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/3872#pullrequestreview-445819296

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:27:17 -0700

@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/3872#pullrequestreview-447357753

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:55:56 -0700

@janaiyengar approved this pull request.

LGTM, one suggestion.

Perhaps the following reword: "An endpoint SHOULD include multiple frames in a single packet if they are to be sent at the same encryption level, instead of coalescing multiple packets at the same encryption level." ?

-- 
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/3872#pullrequestreview-447515887

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:36:45 -0700

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

09abe556c0b939cc7933c596899ea5c366c11d91  Reword as suggested by Jana

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3872/files/f1b52d999e4d94eab44f39a737d8e2124042ba59..09abe556c0b939cc7933c596899ea5c366c11d91

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:36:53 -0700

Merged #3872 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/3872#event-3542046658