Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Auth48: Header field, field, and state names (Issue #4951)

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:14:11 -0800

The RFC Editor asks:

> Please review the way header field, field, and state names are treated.  Should any of these be updated for consistency?  
> 
> For example, we see:
> 
> - Host field vs. "Host" header field
> - Content-Length header field
> - "Cookie" field vs. cookie field lines
> - "Data Recvd" state (init. caps and double quotes) vs. TIME_WAIT state (CAPS, underscore, no quotes)

The last is a deliberate difference, deferring to the naming used in various sources, but the others should be reviewed and potentially aligned.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/[email-masked]>

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:26:12 -0800

As part of this fix, the "malformed" definition has an extraneous comma following the reference to Content-Length; clean that up at the same time.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951#issuecomment-1048135645
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951/[email-masked]>

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:17:52 -0800

The convention in http-core appears to be:

- `the "Foo" header field` when Foo is being introduced and defined
- `the Foo header field` thereafter

(@reschke, @royfielding, @mnot: please correct me if I'm extrapolating your usage incorrectly.)

I'll plan to normalize on that for header field names.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951#issuecomment-1050180681
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951/[email-masked]>

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:32:59 -0800

I think so.

Perhaps we should set up a style guide on https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki ?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951#issuecomment-1050328073
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951/[email-masked]>

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:44:59 -0800

See https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/Style-Guide

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951#issuecomment-1050335175
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951/[email-masked]>

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 08:46:11 -0800

Pity we didn't do this earlier.  🙂  Now, what should we put in the currently-empty section?  I tend to think we can follow what methods do and just have the bare header name, but there are also some cases where it would be nice to separate it.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951#issuecomment-1051016636
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951/[email-masked]>

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 20:21:05 -0800

I had a go; take a look...

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951#issuecomment-1051564624
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4951/[email-masked]>