Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify how connection ID can be omitted (#671)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:01:02 -0700

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.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671

-- Commit Summary --

  * Clarify how connection ID can be omitted

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (20)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:06:33 -0700

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -468,7 +468,10 @@ Connection ID Flag:
 
 : The second bit (0x40) of the first octet indicates whether the Connection ID
   field is present.  If set to 1, then the Connection ID field is present; if
-  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

nit: By used, do you mean negotiated?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671#pullrequestreview-46719730

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:09:04 -0700

ianswett approved this pull request.

One Nit, but looks good.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671#pullrequestreview-46719983

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:09:47 -0700

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

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?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671#discussion_r124585373

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:46:38 -0700

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

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671#discussion_r124608629

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:22:50 +0000 (UTC)

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

528e262  Use specified when talking about presence of transport parameter

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671/files/514b884373d24bc5929b01bde91d5055de2b970e..528e262e436f37c209723f390787b75c1722149e

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:26:08 +0000 (UTC)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/671#pullrequestreview-46957405