- From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 07:06:31 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Matthew Kerwin +ADw-matthew+AEA-kerwin.net.au+AD4
- CC: Kari Hurtta +ADw-hurtta-ietf+AEA-elmme-mailer.org+AD4, HTTP Working Group +ADw-ietf-http-wg+AEA-w3.org+AD4, Lucas Pardue +ADw-lucaspardue.24.7+AEA-gmail.com+AD4, Dmitri Tikhonov +ADw-dtikhonov+AEA-litespeedtech.com+AD4, Brad Lassey +ADw-lassey+AEA-chromium.org+AD4
> "Typically"? In the old testament there is only one 'ENABLE' type setting, > and its initial value is 1. The extended canon introduces a single new > setting that works the other way. I stand corrected. > But yeah. what's significant about them is, 1 or 0, what they say is: "the > recipient of this setting must/must not send a frame of this type". I.e. > the sender of the setting says, "I will/won't understand these frames". > It's not "I will/won't *send* them myself." I think that means we're > agreeing that 'ENABLE' isn't the right word. Yes. / Kari Hurtta
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2019 04:07:06 UTC