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

Clarify how connection ID can be omitted #671

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 28, 2017
Merged

Conversation

martinthomson
Copy link
Member

The definition of the truncate_connection_id was correct, but the name
was poor (it implied that part of the connection ID was included) and it
wasn't referenced from the critical part of the document (the short
header definition). This corrects both of those oversights.

Closes #659.

The definition of the truncate_connection_id was correct, but the name
was poor (it implied that part of the connection ID was included) and it
wasn't referenced from the critical part of the document (the short
header definition).  This corrects both of those oversights.

Closes #659.
@martinthomson martinthomson added -transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. labels Jun 28, 2017
set to 0, the Connection ID field is omitted.
set to 0, the Connection ID field is omitted. The Connection ID field can
only be omitted if the omit_connection_id transport parameter
({{transport-parameter-definitions}}) is used by the intended recipient of the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: By used, do you mean negotiated?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This isn't really a negotiation. Each endpoint indicates whether it will accept a packet that omits connection ID. Nothing that its peer says will change that. "Used" is perhaps a little too generic, but would "includes" work?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Includes is ok, but maybe "supplied" or "specified"?

Copy link
Contributor

@ianswett ianswett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One Nit, but looks good.

@martinthomson martinthomson merged commit 647f056 into master Jun 28, 2017
@martinthomson martinthomson deleted the truncate_omit branch June 28, 2017 20:34
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
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants