Re: Working Group Last Call: HTTP Client Hints

Thanks! PR at https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1082

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:57 AM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Yes, I think that makes sense.
>
> The reason for adding this was to make sure that CH authors understood
> that they'd see better cache efficiency if they did this, but it's not
> ready yet.
>
>
>
> > On 29 Feb 2020, at 7:23 am, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:28 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
> > The PR is now merged and addresses most of the comments.
> >
> >
> > Appendix A.  Interaction with Variants Response Header Field
> >
> >     Client Hints may be combined with Variants response header field
> >     [VARIANTS] to enable fine-grained control of the cache key for
> >     improved cache efficiency.  Features that define Client Hints will
> >     need to specify the related variants algorithms as described in
> >     Section 6 of [VARIANTS].
> >
> > Unless we're planning to finish VARIANTS really soon, I'd drop this
> > appendix.
> >
> > mnot - thoughts?
> >
> > Friendly ping! :)
> >
> > I might have been involved in asking for this section... Basically, if
> this document is ready to go to RFC before Variants, we don't want to
> artificially block it behind Variants, which this Appendix would do. To fix
> that, this text ought to move to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-variants-06#appendix-A.
> >
> > If Variants had gone first, this text would be in the right place, for
> the same reason.
> >
> > That is, I agree with Julian.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > Jeffrey
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>