Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve language on blocking entries. (#3131)

Bence Béky <notifications@github.com> Tue, 29 October 2019 12:10 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 CC4FC120106 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 05:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 DZ9Ox5fZnY_W for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 05:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEA8E1201DC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 05:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D82A06CD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 05:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1572351043; bh=ZG+qVV/jTRxnQGtNhc7yrYZA4OSQRDqfa9RLDMIy/5k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VBip+ReKmCOVHXvVIUbd1yTa+HWLkTHycaMNQCK9RHZLnnGUXSAZQUTVg0f4yWleQ y0ls1qHZko6KSJpVo9qVh1MwpxMnK+xSQ33eQUTCnWii6Fw35RLhymAhs5PKQU4pWp ifrnF7JpK+5klS0kyGyzRnjshIYwMxloFLzRMz/A=
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 05:10:43 -0700
From: =?UTF-8?B?QmVuY2UgQsOpa3k=?= <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3VWH7BPIWAR5HIKOV3YVWNHEVBNHHB45IJ64@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3131/c547389906@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3131@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3131@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve language on blocking entries. (#3131)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db82c43b5725_785e3faa340cd9602952e7"; 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/jNrfTDfmlNoTpSAdfD6RpCL-oCc>
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, 29 Oct 2019 12:10:47 -0000

> This removes the text that you have to track references. Of course you _do_ to accomplish what this section describes. Do we want a normative term somewhere?
> 

The following sentence from the old text that I propose to remove:

> An encoder MUST ensure that a header block which references a dynamic table	
> entry is not processed by the decoder after the referenced entry has been	
> evicted.

is redundant with the following sentence that I am leaving untouched:

> An encoder MUST NOT insert an entry into the dynamic table (or duplicate an
> existing entry) if doing so would evict a blocking entry.

(Redundant in the sense that the second sentence implies the first.)  I do not believe that removing the first sentence while leaving the second one relaxes normative requirements on the encoder, nor do I believe that keeping both sentences makes the draft clearer.

-- 
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/3131#issuecomment-547389906