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
Consolidate connection ID negotiation section with prior text #1888
Conversation
The text here was mostly good, and I believe that this is a good place for that text. However, some of the text was expository in nature, and I moved that up to the connection ID definition section. There is some new stuff in there, mostly just to point forward to the negotiation section.
draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
Outdated
Packets with short headers ({{short-header}}) only include the Destination | ||
Connection ID and omit the explicit length. The length of the Destination | ||
Connection ID field is expected to be known to endpoints. Endpoints using a | ||
connection-ID based load balancer could agree with the load balancer on a fixed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
connection-ID -> Connection ID
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think what was meant here is "Connection ID-based load balancer" (dash between ID and based). This would look odd because Connection ID is two words. This can be reworded as "using a load balancer based on Connection IDs."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
Packets with short headers ({{short-header}}) only include the Destination | ||
Connection ID and omit the explicit length. The length of the Destination | ||
Connection ID field is expected to be known to endpoints. Endpoints that use a | ||
load balancer that routes based on connection ID could agree with the load |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Run on sentence ("that ... that"). I prefer the earlier construction: "Endpoints using a connection-ID based load balancer could agree with the load balancer on a fixed or minimum length and on an encoding for connection IDs."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It has all the problems already highlighted, plus the precedence of the "or" and "and" toward the end is unclear. I've tweaked again.
The text here was mostly good, and I believe that this is a good place
for that text. However, some of the text was expository in nature, and
I moved that up to the connection ID definition section. There is some
new stuff in there, mostly just to point forward to the negotiation
section.