search

kazuho / draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority

Other
6 stars 4 forks source link

Shorten header field names #96

Closed rmarx closed 4 years ago

rmarx commented 4 years ago

Discussed in Singapore: mainly to reduce overhead on H1, we would want to shorten the field names (e.g., urgency becomes u, progressive becomes p).

Concrete example was 3;p to indicate urgency level 3, progressive=?1 (I assume leaving out the p means progressive=?0)

I don't know enough about structured headers to make these changes myself though.

rmarx commented 4 years ago

Maybe this is a good opportunity to rename progressive to incremental as well, as per #35

LPardue commented 4 years ago

Since I wasn't at the face-to-face, this sounds like it has overlap with #90. I'd like to resolve my understanding of the linkage between these two issues, so perhaps need to wait for the PR that addresses this one.

rmarx commented 4 years ago

Wasn't extensive discussion on #90 in Singapore, but talked with @kazuho about this, and he said he felt #90 should be out-of-scope for now can be punted till later. I tend to agree with that.

ianswett commented 4 years ago

Agreed, I think #90 is a more complex use case than we've had time to seriously consider.

rmarx commented 4 years ago

Current text says

Values of these parameters MUST always be present.

This should also be changed then (e.g., leaving out progressive leads to default value). Apparently, this is also not enforced in all the examples in the current text.

rmarx commented 4 years ago

After some discussion with @kazuho and @LPardue, it seems structured header dictionaries need the values present for each parameter, so it would look like this (i = incremental)

priority: u=0, i=?0

If that's correct, I can take this one up as well.

ianswett commented 4 years ago

I think that's the most obvious change, so I'd suggest proceeding with that.