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

Not all registries have stricter rules #4388

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2020
Merged

Not all registries have stricter rules #4388

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2020

Conversation

martinthomson
Copy link
Member

Closes #4385.

@martinthomson martinthomson added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. -transport labels Nov 17, 2020
gloinul
gloinul reviewed Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
@@ -7328,12 +7328,12 @@ permanent registrations.

The creation of a registry MAY identify a range of codepoints where
registrations are governed by a different registration policy. For instance,
the registries for 62-bit codepoints in this document have stricter policies for
codepoints in the range from 0 to 63.
the frame type registry in {{iana-frames}} has a stricter policy for codepoints
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The transport error also have this range, but then have an additional range so I think this text need tweaking.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure that I follow. Frame types have a stricter policy for 0..=63. I don't see why would need to talk about the other ~2^62 values.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree. @gloinul ?

@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

@gloinul: You have a comment here pending. I'm planning to merge this PR in ~15 hours from now, so please say something now if you still would prefer a change.

@martinthomson martinthomson merged commit d5b0bf6 into master Dec 8, 2020
@martinthomson martinthomson deleted the iana-maybe-stricter branch December 8, 2020 23:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@janaiyengar janaiyengar janaiyengar approved these changes

@gloinul gloinul gloinul left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Transport: IANA section inconsistency regarding 0-63 range for 62-bit values
3 participants
@martinthomson @janaiyengar @gloinul