Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why are there two ways of associating push with requests? (#3275)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 07:10 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 35FD81208FF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:10:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 VXFNbq9jUC9I for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:10:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0EFF12018B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:10:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D3F960613 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:10:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576566614; bh=PLzd3e8rzgEMJWdebB862kPy87iV/mEE8yKMDTMlCHU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=O2PEkoqKTYlyHnTdtmSclosykkSr4JDipy5qlRJY1HRCBBh+SMN5eKJBV/fMv2JE7 IdRyneRCgHEItIQLSPxLwhn0bMYeuxLoUT7klpDhSBoUwfB2swhTSF3KI9T4Y91547 ky0Uc1pqhQ1Ujrz5chRSKHgJKr8+Y1LGnHDbB4CY=
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:10:14 -0800
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYTTYF7NU63VCKSVA54AWY5NEVBNHHB7DC6LI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275/566412333@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why are there two ways of associating push with requests? (#3275)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df87f568ba2e_10cb3fea064cd96830435f"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/CymB7ppOVzEgKGD72ySjl6E-ejI>
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, 17 Dec 2019 07:10:17 -0000

What do you mean by "exact same bytes"? After decompression I'm converting to my own header list object that isn't the same layout as any interop standard, is that ok?

-- 
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/issues/3275#issuecomment-566412333