Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Finding frame lengths #62

Closed
martinthomson opened this issue Dec 1, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

Finding frame lengths #62

martinthomson opened this issue Dec 1, 2016 · 4 comments
Assignees
@martinthomson
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.

Comments

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

Martin Duke requests that all fields necessary for frame length computation be moved to the start of the frame.
@martinthomson martinthomson added design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. -transport labels Dec 1, 2016
@martinthomson martinthomson mentioned this issue Jan 25, 2017
Closed
@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Jan 26, 2017

As discussed in Tokyo, editors to propose a resolution for ACKs and STREAM frames.

@mnot mnot mentioned this issue Jan 26, 2017
Closed
@martinthomson martinthomson mentioned this issue Feb 9, 2017
Merged
@martinthomson martinthomson self-assigned this Feb 9, 2017
@RyanTheOptimist
Copy link
Contributor

I confess to not quite having yet become zen with the process here. Is this ready for a consensus email to the list?

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member Author

I believe that the decision was that the editors would be given discretion, based on the above. If @janaiyengar is ok with my proposal, we're basically done. If you disagree with anything, please let us know.

@RyanTheOptimist
Copy link
Contributor

I'm sure I'm just confused about how the process is expected to work. This is not terribly surprising :)

Do I understand you correctly that since this issue was discussed in Tokyo, no consensus from the list is needed? I'm sorry for being dense.

@mnot mnot removed the editor-ready label Mar 7, 2017
@mnot mnot added the has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list. label Apr 19, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@martinthomson martinthomson

Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@martinthomson @mnot @RyanTheOptimist