Short abstract #92
Short abstract #92
Conversation
martinthomson
added
editorial
|
I agree that the abstract should be concise and not have motivation in it. But there's over cutting here -- there's a purpose to the abstract beyond just the title :-) I would at least leave some text about what is in the document. I would add the following in: "This document describes the core QUIC protocol, including the conceptual design, wire format, and mechanisms of the QUIC protocol for connection establishment, wire format, and mechanisms of the QUIC protocol for connection establishment, stream multiplexing, stream and connection-level flow control, and data stream multiplexing, stream and connection-level flow control, and data-reliability. Accompanying documents describe QUIC's loss detection and reliability." |
|
What is this? SEO? Seriously though, I tried reading that several times before I could get all the way through to the end. It's too much, even if somehow we could split that first sentence. I know that you want to give an outline, but you need to concentrate on the MOST important things. For me, that's the fact that it's a transport protocol and that it's secure and multiplexed. Happy to add other things. Though honestly, maybe only one or two things, such as maybe "reliable" or "connection-oriented"; my change took it to three things, which I think is plenty. Critically, the following don't belong: connection establishment (implied as necessary), wire format (implied by being a protocol), flow control (implied by multiplexing). |
The abstract is a direct copy of the intro. We don't need to repeat ourselves. This just keeps the important information.
martinthomson
force-pushed
the
short_abstract
branch
from
0c3d1d0
to
996f3aa
Compare
|
@janaiyengar, I've edited your suggestion down and created a lengthier abstract. I think that this is worse, but I'm trying an experiment in compromise. |
|
I like the terser abstract. |
The abstract was just a repetition of the introduction, which isn't really appropriate. An abstract doesn't need rationale and all the padding, it should just explain the purpose of the document. QUIC is conceptually very simple, let's capitalize on that.
I wanted to fix the first sentence of the intro to avoid duplication, but it really is a concise, well-constructed intro. It could benefit from being split into smaller pieces though.