- From: Tyler Ham <tyler@thamtech.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:53:36 -0600
- To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGQ3E+eLfq5rLVnmjaLVh1oepTVD+Mgtko4mUpvigWRxEwvBpA@mail.gmail.com>
My first thought when I see the labels "app" and "application" is that the value is meant to be the name of an application. How about something like "appdata"? This changes the noun to a generic "data", but it keeps "app" in there as an adjective to indicate that this parameter is for something application-specific. Tyler On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:43 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote: > I missed an issue that had been filed (but not tagged) prior to the > publication of signatures-12, and it asks a pretty simple question: > > We added a “context” parameter to allow applications to put a specific > string that the application can recognize into the signature parameter set, > so that (for example) an authz protocol can declare that a specific value > be used or a cloud deployment can have all of its proxies use the same > value. However, the term “context” is used in other ways in the spec, so > it’s not the best term to use for this new parameter. The proposal is to > change “context” to “application” or even the shorter “app”: > > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2249 > > > I’d like to do a quick bike shed on this parameter name here, for anyone > who has an opinion. Since it’s newer, existing libraries mostly don’t have > it supported yet so if we’re going to change it we should change it right > now. > > > Thanks, > — Justin >
Received on Friday, 23 September 2022 09:24:22 UTC