Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Editorial nit: References to "CID" in transport draft #3794

Closed
tfpauly opened this issue Jun 29, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3796
Closed

Editorial nit: References to "CID" in transport draft #3794

tfpauly opened this issue Jun 29, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3796
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.

Comments

@tfpauly
Copy link

tfpauly commented Jun 29, 2020

"Use of IPv6 Flow-Label and Migration" and the definition of "preferred_address" both reference "CID" without that abbreviation of Connection ID having been defined elsewhere. It's pretty obvious, but the text for IPv6 should probably just write out connection ID in long form.

martinthomson added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 30, 2020
We've been pretty disciplined about using "connection ID", except for
the text on flow labels and one mention in the diagram for
preferred_address.  Of course, the mentions in the flow label text were
specifically for the "Destination Connection ID field", so that is what
I used there.

Closes #3794.
@martinthomson martinthomson added -transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. labels Jun 30, 2020
@larseggert larseggert added this to Triage in Late Stage Processing via automation Jun 30, 2020
@larseggert larseggert moved this from Triage to Editorial Issues in Late Stage Processing Jun 30, 2020
Late Stage Processing automation moved this from Editorial Issues to Issue Handled Jun 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
Late Stage Processing
  
Issue Handled
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants