Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Script updating archive at 2021-04-09T18:06:13Z. [ci skip]
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
ID Bot committed Apr 9, 2021
1 parent 317b3f0 commit 626bdae
Showing 1 changed file with 213 additions and 4 deletions.
217 changes: 213 additions & 4 deletions archive.json
View file
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
"magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
"timestamp": "2021-03-31T18:31:59.820047+00:00",
"timestamp": "2021-04-09T18:06:11.489799+00:00",
"repo": "quicwg/datagram",
"labels": [
{
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1606,19 +1606,228 @@
"labels": [],
"body": "Clarify meaning of 0 in the datagram transport parameter, based on the discussion at IETF 110. This follows one of the suggestions to have 0 mean no datagrams, and > 0 mean support for datagrams. This should be a non-breaking change with existing implementations.\r\n\r\nCloses #3 ",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T18:31:58Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T18:31:58Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:58:29Z",
"baseRepository": "quicwg/datagram",
"baseRefName": "master",
"baseRefOid": "6dec1591e44a54fc1ed6f1c6f43c7196b30d6acc",
"headRepository": "quicwg/datagram",
"headRefName": "tfpauly-patch-1",
"headRefOid": "a6d4034f7262b3a19752e93fe2ce139bb2c3f2a3",
"headRefOid": "33f1a6669e5c1c0b0a00a611dd7bfa038678f7b8",
"closedAt": null,
"mergedAt": null,
"mergedBy": null,
"mergeCommit": null,
"comments": [
{
"author": "Ralith",
"authorAssociation": "NONE",
"body": "This change is very surprising. Why not take the approach that was discussed in the issue, wherein the limit describes the *payload* size, and presence of the transport parameter indicates extension support? It's not useful to have a bunch of ill-formed possibilities where the limit describes the frame size but is smaller than needed to encode the frame.\r\n\r\nSee also https://github.com/tfpauly/draft-pauly-quic-datagram/pull/31.",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T18:55:06Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T18:57:13Z"
},
{
"author": "tfpauly",
"authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"body": "@Ralith this is based on the WG discussion, minuted here: https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/main/ietf110/minutes.md",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T20:28:50Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:28:50Z"
},
{
"author": "Ralith",
"authorAssociation": "NONE",
"body": "So it comes down to preserving the weird semantics nobody wants because renumbering the TP is aesthetically unappealing? That seems like a shame. Unless saying \"I support it, but you can't send it\" is actually useful somehow?",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T20:58:29Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:58:29Z"
}
],
"reviews": [
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjEwNTQz",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "a6d4034"
},
"author": "nibanks",
"authorAssociation": "MEMBER",
"state": "APPROVED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T18:44:58Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T18:44:58Z",
"comments": []
},
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjM2Njc1",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "a6d4034"
},
"author": "DavidSchinazi",
"authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"state": "APPROVED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T19:17:45Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T19:18:20Z",
"comments": [
{
"originalPosition": 25,
"body": "```suggestion\r\nreceive such frames on this connection.\r\n```",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T19:17:45Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:28:57Z"
}
]
}
]
},
{
"number": 20,
"id": "MDExOlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0NjA2MTc2Mzkx",
"title": "Explain the lack of flow IDs, and suggest a pattern",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/pull/20",
"state": "OPEN",
"author": "tfpauly",
"authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"assignees": [],
"labels": [],
"body": "Closes #6",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T18:55:19Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T21:13:55Z",
"baseRepository": "quicwg/datagram",
"baseRefName": "master",
"baseRefOid": "6dec1591e44a54fc1ed6f1c6f43c7196b30d6acc",
"headRepository": "quicwg/datagram",
"headRefName": "tfpauly-patch-2",
"headRefOid": "76d135a973ae8cd1364f2cedeed8ec9d232a3c3a",
"closedAt": null,
"mergedAt": null,
"mergedBy": null,
"mergeCommit": null,
"comments": [],
"reviews": []
"reviews": [
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjIxMzk4",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "76d135a"
},
"author": "nibanks",
"authorAssociation": "MEMBER",
"state": "COMMENTED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T18:58:16Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T18:58:16Z",
"comments": [
{
"originalPosition": 35,
"body": "I assume H3 datagram spec also references back to this one? Does it make sense to have a circular reference? I know some in the IETF discussion wanted this text, but I'm personally fine with out this last paragraph.",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T18:58:16Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T18:58:16Z"
}
]
},
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjIxNTEx",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "76d135a"
},
"author": "nibanks",
"authorAssociation": "MEMBER",
"state": "APPROVED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T18:58:24Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T18:58:24Z",
"comments": []
},
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjI4OTY3",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "76d135a"
},
"author": "DavidSchinazi",
"authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"state": "COMMENTED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T19:07:56Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T19:07:56Z",
"comments": [
{
"originalPosition": 35,
"body": "Circular references are common and fine",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T19:07:56Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T19:07:56Z"
}
]
},
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjMwODI2",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "76d135a"
},
"author": "DavidSchinazi",
"authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"state": "APPROVED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T19:10:18Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T19:10:18Z",
"comments": []
},
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjkxNTY4",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "76d135a"
},
"author": "tfpauly",
"authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"state": "COMMENTED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T20:29:46Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:29:46Z",
"comments": [
{
"originalPosition": 35,
"body": "Yup, this is a non-normative reference; H3 datagram will have a normative reference.",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T20:29:46Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:29:46Z"
}
]
},
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NjkyNzQx",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "76d135a"
},
"author": "DavidSchinazi",
"authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"state": "COMMENTED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T20:31:18Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:31:18Z",
"comments": [
{
"originalPosition": 35,
"body": "Agreed, though FWIW circular normative references are OK - they just require simultaneous publication.",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T20:31:18Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T20:31:19Z"
}
]
},
{
"id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NjI1NzI0MTI5",
"commit": {
"abbreviatedOid": "76d135a"
},
"author": "LPardue",
"authorAssociation": "MEMBER",
"state": "COMMENTED",
"body": "",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T21:13:54Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T21:13:55Z",
"comments": [
{
"originalPosition": 35,
"body": "I'm not too bothered by a circular reference but I don't think it adds much. The wire format is simple. The main complexity of the H3 draft comes from how the flow IDs meld with HTTP semantics. So if you're going to reference it then be more specific about why, or just don't bother IMO.\r\n\r\nAnd if you are going to reference it, let's use the MASQUE edited draft ",
"createdAt": "2021-03-31T21:13:54Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-31T21:13:55Z"
}
]
}
]
}
]
}

0 comments on commit 626bdae

Please sign in to comment.