Parents and children of check-in [8aa2cf2c35]
|
2026-08-06
| ||
| 00:26 |
citations: stop plan references wearing section notation
Issue #18: "a reference to a plan must not wear § notation." 80 sites across eight files cited `§E`, meaning item E of storage-track-plan.md -- a document that is not a draft and is not even in this repository. They read exactly like spec citations, including in test names. `§E` is unambiguous: no draft defines an Appendix E, and every site sits in the storage family (checkout, logstore, managed, pack) whose headers already name storage-track-plan.md. Bare references become `plan E`; where the filename is already present it reads `storage-track-plan.md item E`, which says the same thing without the false notation. One carried a line number, `§E L119`. A line cite into a file outside the repository cannot be verified by anything, so the range went with it. That was the last `not a section of any draft` in the tree: 1 to 0. Baseline 101 to 100. Deliberately NOT swept: §A and §B, which are real draft appendices -- §A alone has 162 subsection citations, and a blanket letter sweep would have destroyed every one. §C (78 sites) is left for a separate ruling: it looks like the same plan, but Appendix C exists in three drafts, so it needs the discriminator applied per site rather than in bulk. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: ee4e0e623a user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |
|
2026-08-05
| ||
| 23:53 |
citations: stop claiming spec authority for two local rules
Two comment families asserted RFC requirements the drafts do not make. The 65535-byte line bound is ours, not the protocol's. §5.2 L962 says "This protocol imposes no separate maximum line length" and §11.3 L2199 repeats it, yet four tests named it an RFC bound and max_line_len's doc cited §5.2 as its source. The constant stays -- a finite receive window is a resource limit, and §11.3 L2200-2201 leaves payload limits to "declared counts and storage policy" -- but it is now documented as local policy, including that a conforming peer may legally send a longer line and we refuse it. Issue #32 justified this constant as a principled tripwire on the strength of that citation; the doc now records that the justification was void. The §3.10 comments reasoned about a section that no longer exists -- "§3.10 restates §3.2 and defers to it, so introduces no new order rule". The argument had no subject. Each test asserts real behaviour and is kept; the citations now name the section that actually governs it, and r1 points at §3.2 L376-377, the rule the deleted section deferred TO. not-a-section 6 to 1. Baseline 106 to 101. test 3495 (1 environmental e2e skip, no failures), fmt. Issue #18. check-in: 8aa2cf2c35 user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |
| 22:47 |
citations: re-key 29 more, mostly worked-example appendix cites
Second pass over the leftovers after the bulk re-key. 29 of 107 survived review; 10 were refuted and 68 returned unresolved, which is the right shape for leftovers -- the easy ones were already gone. Most are Appendix A worked-example citations, now visible to the checker for the first time: the round-1/round-2 request and reply bodies, their igot and gimme runs, and the SHA3 gate response. An example transcript is often the better citation for a claim about concrete wire bytes than the prose that governs them. The refusals stay instructive. One proposal was rejected because the directional half of its claim lives in §3.2.1 Round Message Layout rather than §6.1, so it was mis-sectioned rather than mis-lined; another because its range stopped mid-sentence, dropping the words the claim rested on. Baseline 135 to 106. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: 22d23eae1c user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |