Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "malformed" definition (#3352)

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 17 January 2020 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAD81200B1 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:39:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lbaU3urjPELR for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADAB912004A for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42EFA0070 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:39:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579225145; bh=afsH1HjTihXxZPygfT4H7Q4xpJ8SD8K5uv9IgkMSJRk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=s1o0e+3/EM7Aec4iaXc5aA9Zl7LKUAEIiWbYg+UU085SB9DkuoQbPpEE4wOVEIm8u pMhfvDBMzOLjzbxeMTwG68KgfPuGsmf13jQQ2tbw/gqQQjIAR0j5Xt2rqyTSeFfiiv SmGMRrqySnh7lYQyYfwTLIyZCmM+kqJ3qNgm4YPE=
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:39:05 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "malformed" definition (#3352)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e211039d4909_37fb3ff22f0cd968244614"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 01:39:08 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

> @@ -410,10 +417,10 @@ considered invalid.
 An HTTP request/response exchange fully consumes a bidirectional QUIC stream.

That's a keen observation. Now I wonder if this section talks just about client-initiated requests, or if it covers pushes too.

If it is the former, we need similar clarification on what is valid for a push. If it is the latter, this sentence should be adjusted in a way that the paragraph would cover pushes too.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: