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

The intent is to modify the current draft and to move the bits that are
related to specific hints and their web-related processing model to HTML
and Fetch.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:47 AM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>