Editorial pass on explicit Path ID #334
Conversation
I mainly merged the "Path identifier" section into the right place in the rest of the document. Having such a separate section did repeat the same things multiple time. That is usually very unfortunate because that means you have to change things in multiple places. Further, some smaller editorial issue in the rest of the document. This is only a first pass, I think we need more iterations.
Co-authored-by: Quentin De Coninck <quentin.deconinck@umons.ac.be>
|
Thanks a lot for all these work! Some minor suggestions. |
draft-ietf-quic-multipath.md
Outdated
| Using multiple packet number spaces requires changes in the way AEAD is | ||
| applied for packet protection, as explained in {{multipath-aead}}, | ||
| and tighter constraints for key updates, as explained in {{multipath-key-update}}. | ||
| The Path Identifier associated with the Destination Connection ID is used to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence seems out of place here. Maybe just delete it?
draft-ietf-quic-multipath.md
Outdated
| @@ -543,22 +516,21 @@ MUST send a PATH_ABANDON frame to retire the Path ID. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Allocating, Consuming and Retiring Connection IDs {#consume-retire-cid} | |||
|
|
|||
| Each endpoints pre-allocate a Path Identifier for each new Connection ID. | |||
| Each endpoints pre-allocate a Path Identifier for each new connection ID. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's incorrect. Multiple CIDs are associated with the same path ID.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is correct because it doesn't say that it can be the same path ID. However, I agree it's confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not fully sure what to do here. Maybe just remove the sentence entirely?
| Each endpoints pre-allocate a Path Identifier for each new connection ID. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest change the sentence into:
Each endpoints assign a Path Identifier for each new connection ID.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd argue it's the wrong way around anyway. First you create the path ID, then you issue CIDs for this path.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's true. So it's better to change the sentence into:
'Endpoints first allocate unused Path Identifiers, then they issue Connection IDs for each Path Identifier.'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think that is a useful sentence. I think we can just remove it. Or what do you think is missing if we remove it, @Yanmei-Liu ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence is certainly necessary, we should clarify the relationship between CID and PATH ID at the very beginning of this section.
draft-ietf-quic-multipath.md
Outdated
| The list of received packets used to send acknowledgements also remains | ||
| uneffected as the packet number space is associated with a path. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find this confusing, and I'm surprised one would even consider this. This is just plain RFC 9000 behavior.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that this seems weird if you don't have any context about the single packet number space approach. However, does it really hurt to have this sentence?
I definitely planning for another editing pass, to stream-line the whole text. Maybe we can reconsider then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in any case, "uneffected" --> "unaffected".
Thanks! Co-authored-by: Marten Seemann <martenseemann@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: mirjak <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>
Co-authored-by: mirjak <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>
Co-authored-by: mirjak <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>
Co-authored-by: Quentin De Coninck <quentin.deconinck@umons.ac.be>
I mainly merged the "Path identifier" section into the right place in the rest of the document. Having such a separate section did repeat the same things multiple time. That is usually very unfortunate because that means you have to change things in multiple places.
Further, some smaller editorial issue in the rest of the document.
This is only a first pass, I think we need more iterations.