- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:07:49 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 21.01.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Lucas Pardue: > ... > * Option 2: “Three headers”. Update RFC 3230 terms and light touch on > Digest. New Representation-Digest and Content-Digest headers use an SF > Dictionary format. Digest and Representation-Digest act similarly but > use different wire formats and have different parsing rules around > duplicates; new headers are RECOMMENDED over old. See the proposal PR at > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1893 > <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1893>; diff at > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://httpwg.github.io/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers.txt&url2=https://httpwg.github.io/http-extensions/structured-digest2-and-content-digest/draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers.txt > <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://httpwg.github.io/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers.txt&url2=https://httpwg.github.io/http-extensions/structured-digest2-and-content-digest/draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers.txt> > ... That's the option I would prefer, because: 1) Semantics of fields (content vs representation) is clear from field name, 2) BW compat if needed is preserved, 3) standard syntax for new fields. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 January 2022 16:08:05 UTC