Parents and children of check-in [22d23eae1c]
|
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 | |
| 22:40 |
citations: repair six section renumberings the errata left behind
Six cited sections do not exist in the drafts at all, so no line range could ever have been right. Each was renumbered, and each successor is confirmed by subject match against the section's own text: §B.4 -> §B Appendix B flattened; cookie-card, url-login-value, pct-user, unreserved and pct-encoded all still exist, every citation exactly 1787 lines above its production §12.1 -> §11.1 Credential Replay §12.2 -> §11.2 Private-Content Exposure and Protected Transport §10.3 -> §9.3 Configuration Exchange -- "the server MUST require Admin; otherwise emit error not authorized to push" §10.4 -> §9.4 Commit-Lock Pragmas -- every site is ci-lock/ci-unlock §9.1.1 -> §8.5.1 Unversioned-File Synchronisation -- "status 3+MTIME-CMP (2 older, 3 identical, 4 newer)" The §B citations carry corrected line numbers, each asserted to land on the production its comment names. The rest carry the section only: once the section is right the stale range is an ordinary "outside" case, which the re-key pass already handles, and inventing a range here would be the clamping this work exists to prevent. Deliberately untouched, all needing a decision rather than a lookup: §12.3 (successor §11.3 states the OPPOSITE -- "This protocol defines no separate per-line byte limit before LF" -- while four tests assert a 65535-byte bound as an RFC requirement), §3.10 (removed; the comment reasons about the section's own existence), and §E (a reference to storage-track-plan.md wearing §-notation, which the issue forbids). not-a-section 36 to 6. Baseline 144 to 135. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: d4e0e0d6da user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |