This phrasing might be clearer. I'd be good with that change.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020, at 13:30, Mike Bishop wrote:
>
> The modified text (and the history of the current text being removed)
> risks giving the false impression that an extension cannot add a new
> pseudo-header field when we have an RFC which demonstrates they can, at
> least for HTTP/2. As such, I’m hesitant to take even that change. The
> current text is not wrong.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it would be clearer to say “MUST NOT…; however, an extension
> could negotiate a modification of this restriction.”
>
>
>
> *From:* Lucas Pardue <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 16, 2020 10:08 PM
> *To:* Martin Duke <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Mark Nottingham <[email protected]>; Lars Eggert <[email protected]>;
> WG Chairs <[email protected]>; Mike Bishop <[email protected]>;
> IETF QUIC WG <[email protected]>; Magnus Westerlund
> <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: HTTP/3 Nits
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification Mark.
>
>
>
> I don't think we need to open this can. I've made
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4238/files to shiffy things
> along.
>
>
>
> Martin, any chance you can create an issue for this?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Lucas
>
