- From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:48:25 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi @all, today me and Lucas had a brief meeting on the parameters subject, and considering those feedback we decided the following: - given this comment from @Mark Nottingham https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1211#issuecomment-675208548 and as this specification is a refresh of RFC3230, we cannot *still* switch to S-F. We would really like to switch in the future, and we both agree with @Poul-Henning Kamp considerations; - given that digest-algorithms are case insensitive, we'll make a PR saying that they SHOULD be used in *lowercase*, to ease a future transition to S-F; - in absence of implementation, we'll follow @Julian Reschke propose to DEPRECATE http-parameters usage and wait for implementor feedback. We think that @Amos Jeffries considerations are reasonable, but decided to make an attempt to simplify the spec. Related PRs will land on the repo: feel free to provide more feedback or suggest implementers to engage with the WG. Clearly further feedback is always welcome! Have a nice day, R: Il giorno mar 18 ago 2020 alle ore 18:39 Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > Il giorno mar 18 ago 2020 alle ore 18:20 Poul-Henning Kamp > <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> ha scritto: > > > > -------- > > Roberto Polli writes: > > > > > While I like sf-binary, actual digest-algorithms define their own serialization > > > method (in this case it's accidentally the same of structured headers) but other > > > algorithms use eg. integer. > > > > > > To support SF we could say that digest-algorithms like sha-256 and > > > sha-512 should be supported > > > in both sf-binary and the traditional token format. > > > > The most sensible way (IMO) is to define that *all* digests are *always* sf-binary. > > I certainly agree on all your statements, but we cannot break current > implementations > of sha-256 and sha-512 for fixing the parameters issue. > > So: > - ok to prepare Digest to be SF-ready > - ok if there's a way do describe the current Digest syntax with SF, > so that we can later obsolete non sf-binary algoritms > - not sure that fixing the parameters issue is a valid reason to > introduce SF now > > My 2c, > R.
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2020 14:48:49 UTC