Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invalid Largest Reference is a connection error. (#2249)

Bence Béky <notifications@github.com> Mon, 24 December 2018 13:50 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 D8259130EF5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 05:50:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 QKQsKFRFbR8v for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 05:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF918130EF1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 05:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 05:50:51 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1545659451; bh=iB0n+8NtP/yY5qPJolGoiK4BchKsFk2/e0nIkpEopwo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=n/8ypwlPJb9vRB0wMxl7C+noq/WoQfAg984YndH/9JYUyVZieUkMkIP/DFZrIgLZ1 9sk/BWkk1JIWDbJMh9ksyRMsSRWbg77nrCrV1WEVNfW2s23OZS4bwzRp4IrbCBa1OS wtHel0wRSVsx090IwKEnuwGe2I3GJx4SjoWwIquc=
From: Bence Béky <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab9135eceec57e3a6575bf975f25a5b3e8f3b8fbc892cf000000011838a63b92a169ce17789e1a@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2249/c449736701@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2249@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2249@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invalid Largest Reference is a connection error. (#2249)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c20e43b84cf1_544e3fe9bf8d45bc622185"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: bencebeky
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/eYlPRBIjSVZTWgkxN_mSTHUOr6M>
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: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 13:50:55 -0000

> This will conflict with #2248.

No worries, I do not expect all of my PRs to be approved (even though I think they are all improvements).  I'm just drafting them to start a discussion, because for small things like this it is much easier to talk about an actual PR then to try describing the changes.

If there is consensus to merge either this or #2248, I'm happy to rebase the other one.

-- 
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/2249#issuecomment-449736701