Re: Digest Headers and Structured Fields

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the engaged discussion during the Interim yesterday. Based on
the feeling in the room, and some of my editorial judgment, I've prepared a
new pull request that sits somewhere between option 2 and 3. It also
borrows some of the ideas given in the chat to overcome the technical
challenges I mentioned towards the end of the presentation. Please see
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1919, which includes a
summary of things.

I might be overlooking what people want to see wrt text treatment of RFC
3230 obsoletion. I don't think there's much to say personally. But I'm
happy to take on board feedback in this area.

I didn't address the bikeshed of field names either. A comment was made
about name lengths, which I agree with. In the interest of focus, I think
we should pursue that on a separate ticket and resolve that before we
publish draft 08.

Cheers,
Lucas


On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 6:41 PM Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Lucas!
>
>
> Folks, see you later!
>
> R
>
>
> Il mar 1 feb 2022, 15:18 Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Thanks for feedback so far. I'll be presenting the different options at
>> the HTTP Interim meeting session in a few hours. The slides might give a
>> bit more insight in case anyone wants to do some preparation: see
>> https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/interim-22-02/digests.pdf
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lucas
>>
>