Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Restore missing Length fields in long packet headers (#3645)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 12 May 2020 04:04 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77993A0B0B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.181
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.173, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ZDBxjxgKCFc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42F33A0B0C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.19.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFFF281789 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1589256278; bh=x0RRXuxGLtoBuvKL9skVbW5HNEwE63UKkIlY1/e9hqQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=YCm+P3FlxJaVGzZ2djr3LQe2jyMhVUyxiZrvDhc1AVYG/kQQqK+TARcxVacyL+ki+ YZBpRO/is7QMaiqV8rp2INj9wEidbdW5OZyMThfVkqjl5jzBWg2MkgLQrp3s2fiZt1 ujXXP5YRgZ9t4S/9aR21nSri2NW9SrrELd/2z8VU=
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 21:04:38 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK56KYJCXSNW622BZQF4YYAVNEVBNHHCJPAC44@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3645/c627095167@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3645@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3645@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Restore missing Length fields in long packet headers (#3645)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eba2056ce557_7ed03fcb112cd960610610"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/CBBdS2wUumlOkPEkVzeQ5cX89UM>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 04:04:41 -0000

How I managed to miss that is a little embarrassing, but Mike's recent changes indicate that my transcription was already pretty bad.

-- 
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/3645#issuecomment-627095167