Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)
Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 20:48 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 C696E3A0EF3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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, 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 X_nfl2vz7h-a for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B430D3A0EEB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065465E0F92 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599079698; bh=dJvKYTJEqpF9cAaqiNukC0W61jEWMdEKqgHNHOEo35s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hLwpy4Cgg8oLPEKjz99xcqooChNIdd9RelPR1g9hgSMsrCh2w1hFKPer52Rpdfpye DX5WK7oQLGTrNkrT4EIssemfOLNsGiDUnQQN+7O/1c8AP859JVmeSO4bPaiH5HdE8R X7fNIPlCzFJ6/4YK6Us458R/RnT/tVi5XZ7sHqQ8=
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:48:17 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5U6TJTRHLA3G56ISF5LPTBDEVBNHHCSF377I@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064/685989228@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f500511ea608_1c3019f07598f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/bRCwyEWpH3n0IjRPPQOcqeoFohI>
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 20:48:20 -0000
Yes, the requirement was removed but the inverse statement was never explicitly added. #4068 corrects that. -- 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/4064#issuecomment-685989228
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sen… Martin Thomson