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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Use of "in order" might be misunderstood as an ordering requirement (1) #4038

Closed
gorryfair opened this issue Aug 20, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4042
Closed

Use of "in order" might be misunderstood as an ordering requirement (1) #4038

gorryfair opened this issue Aug 20, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4042
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
Late Stage Processing

Comments

@gorryfair
Copy link
Contributor

There are other uses of "in order" that the editors may like to address to avoid potential misunderstanding:

/Servers SHOULD be able to read longer connection IDs from other QUIC versions in order to properly form a version negotiation packet./ ... this might be misread as an ordering requirement, but I think is intend to be: /Servers SHOULD be able to read longer connection IDs from other QUIC versions to properly form a version negotiation packet./
@larseggert
Copy link
Member

larseggert commented Aug 20, 2020 •
edited

FYI, it's more readable to quote with >, e.g.,

Servers SHOULD be able to read longer connection IDs from other QUIC versions in order to properly form a version negotiation packet.

this might be misread as an ordering requirement, but I think is intend to be:

Servers SHOULD be able to read longer connection IDs from other QUIC versions to properly form a version negotiation packet.

@larseggert larseggert added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. -transport labels Aug 20, 2020
@larseggert larseggert added this to Triage in Late Stage Processing via automation Aug 20, 2020
@larseggert larseggert moved this from Triage to Editorial Issues in Late Stage Processing Aug 20, 2020
This was referenced Aug 20, 2020
Closed
Merged
Late Stage Processing automation moved this from Editorial Issues to Issue Handled Aug 24, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
Late Stage Processing
  
Issue Handled
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Less confusing "in order to" quicwg/base-drafts
2 participants
@larseggert @gorryfair