- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:15:46 +1100
- To: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Roberto, My personal .02 - publishing this on the Independent stream will cause confusion, because the RFC Series will be seeming to recommend two paths forward at the same time. We discussed the status of the old constructs extensively and came to consensus that the best thing to do was to encourage uniform use of the new constructs' semantics and syntax consistently. I think that the best thing to do is wait and see how the new specification is taken up -- that will take some time, of course. Cheers, > On 22 Mar 2022, at 11:02 pm, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Mark & co, > > since the new Digest introduced Structured Fields, > and the new syntax is not backward compatible, > it would be helpful for implementers to be guided in the transition. > > iiuc this detailed guide is out of scope > for a standard RFC like this one. > Do you think that an individual, informative one > could be a better place for this kind of information? > > Have a nice day, > R. > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2022 21:16:07 UTC