Subject: Re: Digest Headers and Structured Fields

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:18:42 +0000

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

---

From: Roberto Polli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:40:54 +0100

Thanks Lucas!

Folks, see you later!

R

Il mar 1 feb 2022, 15:18 Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]> 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

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:49:57 +0000

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

---

From: Roberto Polli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:57:41 +0100

Hi Lucas et al,

Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 10:53 Lucas Pardue
<[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> , I've prepared a new pull request that sits somewhere between option 2 and 3.
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1919
Thanks Lucas, I will provide some feedback there,
but  a gdoc might be a better discussion tool
for a major rewrite like this one.

I will try to get some feedback from implementers. I know
it will take *some* time though :)

Have a nice day,
R.

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:57:08 +0000

Hey,

> for a major rewrite like this one.

I don't view this as a major rewrite from an editorial perspective. The
core structure of the document remains the same. Its mainly
s/digest/representation-digest, removal of digest-specific prose,and tidy
up of emergent gaps or basic syntax.

The WG process uses GitHub. We have rendered HTML and diff tools. I don't
see how a gDoc improves anything; rather it would generate more work and
fragmentation. I would push back on that.

> it will take *some* time though :)

To echo some of the questions Annabelle asked, I would ask implementers:

Are you familiar with Structured Fields and the variety of off-the-shelf
parser/serializer libraries ready to use?

If we told you that your current use of Digest is incorrect, would you
change anything?

If yes to change: given that they both express ahash of the same input
data, do you see is any other material difference between Digest and
Represenation-Digest?

Cheers
Lucas

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:11:27 +0000

> we should pursue that on a separate ticket and resolve that before we

There was some healthy commentary made on PR
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1919 (Digest option 2.5),
which I've worked on to address or spin off into follow up items. It seems
like we have some rough consensus here and the changeset is large, so my
intention is to merge this in the next day or two in order to not block
progress on other things. Please use that time to make any additional
comments.

Cheers
Lucas