Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] [qpack] minor edits (#4424)

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 16:31:00 -0800

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4424

-- Commit Summary --

  * [qpack] Clarify applicability of dynamic table state probing to QPACK and HTTP
  * [qpack] Minor edits

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-qpack.md (41)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4424.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4424.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/4424

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 08:27:38 -0800

@ianswett approved this pull request.

Some small suggestions that I think might improve consistency, but no strong feelings.

> @@ -1032,7 +1033,7 @@ the Base.
 ~~~~~~~~~~
 {: title="Indexed Field Line"}
 
-This representation starts with the '1' 1-bit pattern, followed by the 'T' bit
+This representation starts with the '1' one-bit pattern, followed by the 'T' bit
 indicating whether the reference is into the static or dynamic table.  The 6-bit

For consistency?

```suggestion
indicating whether the reference is into the static or dynamic table.  The six-bit
```

> @@ -1054,9 +1055,9 @@ of the Base.
 ~~~~~~~~~~
 {: title="Indexed Field Line with Post-Base Index"}
 
-This representation starts with the '0001' 4-bit pattern.  This is followed by
-the post-base index ({{post-base}}) of the matching field line, represented as
-an integer with a 4-bit prefix; see {{prefixed-integers}}.
+This representation starts with the '0001' four-bit pattern.  This is followed
+by the post-base index ({{post-base}}) of the matching field line, represented
+as an integer with a 4-bit prefix; see {{prefixed-integers}}.

```suggestion
as an integer with a four-bit prefix; see {{prefixed-integers}}.
```

> @@ -1143,7 +1144,7 @@ field name and a field value as string literals.
 ~~~~~~~~~~
 {: title="Literal Field Line With Literal Name"}
 
-This representation begins with the '001' three-bit pattern.  The fourth bit is
+This representation starts with the '001' three-bit pattern.  The fourth bit is
 the 'N' bit as described in {{literal-name-reference}}.  The name follows,
 represented as a 4-bit prefix string literal, then the value, represented as an

```suggestion
represented as a four-bit prefix string literal, then the value, represented as an
```

> @@ -1143,7 +1144,7 @@ field name and a field value as string literals.
 ~~~~~~~~~~
 {: title="Literal Field Line With Literal Name"}
 
-This representation begins with the '001' three-bit pattern.  The fourth bit is
+This representation starts with the '001' three-bit pattern.  The fourth bit is
 the 'N' bit as described in {{literal-name-reference}}.  The name follows,
 represented as a 4-bit prefix string literal, then the value, represented as an
 8-bit prefix string literal; see {{string-literals}}.

```suggestion
eight-bit prefix string literal; see {{string-literals}}.
```

-- 
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/4424#pullrequestreview-545598983

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:44:28 -0800

@afrind commented on this pull request.

 ~~~~~~~~~~

I should have mentioned this in the summary.  This is intentional, because the spec defines an "N-bit prefix" to mean something very specific, and that was consistently used in numeric format.  HPACK also had the "one-bit pattern"/"4-bit prefix" as well.  It just got out of sync in some of the QPACK additions.

-- 
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/4424#discussion_r537700948

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:56:04 -0800

@LPardue 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/4424#pullrequestreview-546395000

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:56:27 -0800

@afrind is this linked to any issue?

-- 
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/4424#issuecomment-740079508

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:07:53 -0800

@LPardue : no actually.  I should probably create one I guess?  These came from a review from a past colleague with a sharp eye for detail.

-- 
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/4424#issuecomment-740085838

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:12:44 -0800

For the scope of changes, I think its fine under an editor prerogative. Just wanted to make sure we weren't missing a linkage, alls good.

-- 
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/4424#issuecomment-740088348

---

From: Bence Béky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 08:05:38 -0800

@bencebeky commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1235,8 +1235,9 @@ recovered successfully. However, values with low entropy remain vulnerable.
 Attacks of this nature are possible any time that two mutually distrustful
 entities control requests or responses that are placed onto a single HTTP/3
 connection. If the shared QPACK compressor permits one entity to add entries to
-the dynamic table, and the other to access those entries, then the state of the
-table can be learned.
+the dynamic table, and the other to access those entries to encode chosen field

Not sure if including this commit (from PR 4423) in this PR is intentional.

 ~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with Ian that it would be nice to have a consistent rule across pattern and prefix about writing number numbers with digits versus words.  For example, always write with digits, or always write out in words.  I've also seen style guides recommending words for numbers up to ten and digits starting from 11 (just like in this sentence).  Well, N is always at most 7, so we should probably always use digits or always use words, but preferably do the same for patterns and prefixes within a single document.

I agree with Alan that consistency with HPACK is also desirable.  Now HPACK has 5 occurrences of "N-bit pattern" and 14 occurrences of "N-bit prefix" with specific values for N, and every single one of them uses digits to represent N (just like in this sentence).

In contrast, QPACK before this change has 10 occurrences of N-bit pattern with N in words, 2 occurrences of N-bit pattern with N in digits, 0 occurrences of N-bit prefix with N in words, and 20 occurrences of N-bit prefix with N in digits (only counting occurrences where N is a specific number, not A or N or N-1).  This change would make all 12 patterns written in words but leave all 20 prefixes in digits.  For consistency, I suggest changing all N-bit patterns to writing N in digits.

-- 
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/4424#pullrequestreview-547365281

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:37:05 -0800

~~~~~~~~~~

@bencebeky : derp, you are absolutely right.  I know I looked at HPACK for consistency but in my head saw it was spelled out in some cases -- must be moving too fast.  I'll update it to be digits everywhere, which is both self-consistent in this document consistent with HPACK.

-- 
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/4424#discussion_r538825470

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:38:03 -0800

Nope, not intentional, I think I did a git checkout -b from that commit instead of HEAD.  But I think if I merge that one first it's not an issue?

-- 
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/4424#discussion_r538826073

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:13:11 -0800

@afrind pushed 1 commit.

c52f8028ca8edc2db75fac6c19b1ae173bc1b9c5  Replace <spelled-out-number>-bit pattern to N-bit pattern

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4424/files/074bee923502e5c7b1c4b40dd1d932659230b3fc..c52f8028ca8edc2db75fac6c19b1ae173bc1b9c5

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:16:55 -0800

@afrind pushed 2 commits.

bbd67762cfe65a2f723e15e2a8badcbcbcef0268  [qpack] Minor edits
6e70f5c7de1967639840e2fa756d05e7887809de  Replace <spelled-out-number>-bit pattern to N-bit pattern

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4424/files/c52f8028ca8edc2db75fac6c19b1ae173bc1b9c5..6e70f5c7de1967639840e2fa756d05e7887809de

---

From: afrind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:33:12 -0800

Merged #4424 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/4424#event-4087232794