IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] allow PRIORITY frames referring to placeholders exceeding `SETTING_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS` (#2761)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Fri, 02 August 2019 17:36 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 ACA73120757 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.383 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, 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 e3txdcfYpVGf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 10:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
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 00014120756 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 10:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:36:41 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1564767401; bh=UwHOvQ44Ivxa/fBd3aHOL7whyXy9EtPUkA+xGRiLWlE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yDhQaBGRkArTSLLsAs1TwoWPtCjcrsI9EqmhQ8pX3GcuRLulsfUTASs4moi1nOBfR WC+Olv7KzU5pGSjsUSGVWgwy/xDRaUcVmbIB2IFbpOGETNvjd8JcuB/GzPEQSjVgqM ZZkaZ0mn9XdsPu65ah8MzvBAgwSIy1K5YzLA+v4E=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4AUTSQTTZ6APK3VP53KGTSTEVBNHHBVW7INY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2761/c517785869@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2761@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2761@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] allow PRIORITY frames referring to placeholders exceeding `SETTING_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS` (#2761)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d4474a9e1da3_7d253fd61cecd95c2231de"; 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/vqXVrahQLmZ6w5RGLFHs-BaFras>
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: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 17:36:45 -0000

I think this PR was on a good track, but given the direction at IETF 105 to remove the priority tree from the document, I'm closing the PR.  If we decide to retain the tree-based scheme in H3 (or resurrect it as an extension), I would support incorporating this.  Thanks for the work you put into it, @kazuho.

-- 
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/2761#issuecomment-517785869

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email