-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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.
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
Allow logging of header name and value bytes #414
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -505,10 +505,20 @@ H3HeadersFrame = { | |||
~~~ | |||
{: #h3-headersframe-def title="H3HeadersFrame definition"} | |||
|
|||
HTTP/3 can transport field names or values that are not valid; see {{Section 4.2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
HTTP/3 can transport field names or values that are not valid; see {{Section 4.2 | |
HTTP/3 can encode field names or values that are not valid; see {{Section 4.2 |
? name_text: text | ||
? name_bytes: hexstring | ||
? value_text: text | ||
? value_bytes: hexstring |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we avoid renaming the existing fields?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we decide on using the same approach here as in #412, and there we call it reason + reason_bytes
instead of reason_text + reason_bytes
, then yeah, we should be consistent here as well and keep name + name_bytes + value + value_bytes
@@ -505,10 +505,20 @@ H3HeadersFrame = { | |||
~~~ | |||
{: #h3-headersframe-def title="H3HeadersFrame definition"} | |||
|
|||
HTTP/3 can transport field names or values that are not valid; see {{Section 4.2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not valid what? Valid UTF-8? Valid semantically? valid in terms of range of bytes that are represented? etc.
? name_text: text | ||
? name_bytes: hexstring | ||
? value_text: text | ||
? value_bytes: hexstring |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we decide on using the same approach here as in #412, and there we call it reason + reason_bytes
instead of reason_text + reason_bytes
, then yeah, we should be consistent here as well and keep name + name_bytes + value + value_bytes
Fixes #413