W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints.

From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 16:50:02 +1100
Message-Id: <1546926602.2446628.1628453680.03468AEF@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
No real objection, though a question that might be important:

"the" IETF draft, or just "an" IETF draft?  I say this because client hints seems to be in some sort of perpetual limbo and I don't want to extend that unnecessarily.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, at 16:33, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> From an HTTP WG perspective - does anyone object to the plan that Ilya 
> lays out below for Client Hints?
> 
> 
> > On 8 Jan 2019, at 4:30 pm, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Having worked with trying to shepherd a few of these (hints) through implementation, my recommendation would be to: 
> > 	• Spec the framework in the IETF draft: how to declare which hints you want to receive, how those prefs are stored, expected and recommended cache behaviors
> > 	• Spec the individual hints alongside relevant implementation specs (HTML, Fetch, or feature specific specs like NetInfo)
> > 		• This eliminates all the corner+edge cases that Anne highlighted and allows us to iterate and define new hints as necessary
> > On that note, I think we're ~70% of the way there already. We have in-flight PR's to update all the necessary plumbing in HTML and Fetch, we already pulled out network related hints into NetInfo, and we can integrate remaining hints into the HTML spec itself, which will also clarify all the outstanding CH questions we have on GitHub. For User-Agent specifically, we can+should define it directly in Fetch.
> > 
> > WDYT, reasonable?
> > 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2019 07:44:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 8 January 2019 07:44:05 UTC