Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Core terminology in QPACK (#3520)

afrind <notifications@github.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2763A101A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OylV50CqMMzh for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97A233A1018 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-25680bd.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-25680bd.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.61]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9452966098B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1584133861; bh=vbJWtnU4+uhsKNS5zGXIPhhqCCCATsJ/72krXKnReOA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WYaPTVueDeiqc/xCNtMtiVteQH9luUUcLw5xLKbAR6ozKcFwk7zZGJ4mXg3/ThRa8 0v6MnAtfHcSmaXq4e0grc1BCotu26Urbh/19Zf49tXj0H2cw2PlAyc4TpGmJMIHLgG pn/57y17UkErvMDgeZ0IEnib3fOs7qsAwXquCeRQ=
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:11:01 -0700
From: afrind <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYDVC7PI2Y3DC2N2DF4O7L6LEVBNHHCFHBAYE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3520/review/374610217@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3520@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3520@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Core terminology in QPACK (#3520)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6bf6e580537_72cc3fa34facd960114087"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: afrind
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/UYnQTuiZUD4lRV4DZVec8E4OyZo>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:11:04 -0000

afrind commented on this pull request.

Thanks for taking a stab at this.  

I haven't been closely following the core work; is it at a point where we think it won't change again and we can adopt it here, or should we wait?  What's our plan if this work is finalized before core, and core changes again?

The term I dislike the most is "field line".  This is a good description of what was there in HTTP/1.x, but with H2+, the concept of a "line" is completely foreign.

>  
-Header block:
+Field list:

Would it be better to call this a Field section, rather than a list?

>  
-: The compressed representation of a header list.
+: An ordered collection of HTTP field lines associated with an HTTP message.  A
+  field list can contain multiple field lines with the same name.  It can
+  also contain duplicate field lines.  The header field and trailer field
+  sections of an HTTP message each contain a field list.
+
+Field block:

Should this be a Section block, or Field Section block?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3520#pullrequestreview-374610217