Re: [PATCH 2/2] http: update curl http/2 info matching for curl 8.3.0

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 01:32:01AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > But I think we would happily eat a line like:
> >
> >     [HTTP/2] [] [Secret: xyz]
> >
> > even lacking a stream identifier. I think that's reasonably OK in
> > practice, because we're being over-eager in redacting instead of the
> > other way around. And we're unlikely to see such a line from curl
> > anyway, so I don't think that it matters.
>
> Yes, you're correct that we'd allow an empty stream identifier. I'm
> content to leave it in the name of simplicity.

Yeah, I am definitely OK with that as well. I don't think it's worth
being overly specific in what we accept for redaction, since we're
erring on the side of being less restrictive.

> > But this may all be moot anyway, I don't feel strongly one way or the
> > other.
>
> My inclination is to leave it. I was actually tempted to just allow
> _anything_ in the brackets if only because it makes the code even
> simpler, but the "skip past digits" seemed like a reasonable middle
> ground.

Yep, same. Thanks for the sanity check :-).

Thanks,
Taylor