{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ReactiveSocket/reactivesocket/issues/89","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ReactiveSocket/reactivesocket","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ReactiveSocket/reactivesocket/issues/89/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ReactiveSocket/reactivesocket/issues/89/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ReactiveSocket/reactivesocket/issues/89/events","html_url":"https://github.com/ReactiveSocket/reactivesocket/issues/89","id":153383605,"number":89,"title":"Metadata payload format?","user":{"login":"NiteshKant","id":820005,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/820005?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant","html_url":"https://github.com/NiteshKant","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NiteshKant/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":9,"created_at":"2016-05-06T06:00:06Z","updated_at":"2016-06-09T05:31:51Z","closed_at":"2016-06-09T05:31:51Z","body":"#### Motivation\r\n\r\nFor the reason of flexibility, currently RS protocol does not specify any formats for metadata payload. This is great for flexibility but opens up a way to a wild wild west where everyone in a network call chain can potentially have different metadata formats. Typically, within any infrastructure there would be a need for some standardization of the metadata payload.\r\n\r\nThis issue intends to gather thoughts around the need for prescribing a metadata payload format.\r\n\r\n#### Points to discuss\r\n\r\n* Do we need to standardize the metadata payload?\r\n* Do we need to provide a guidance on what is an optimal way of defining metadata payload?\r\n* If we do provide a guidance;\r\n     * What type of data are we looking for? HTTP 1/2 is key value eg.\r\n     * Is [HTTP/2 hpack spec](https://http2.github.io/http2-spec/compression.html#) worthwhile to look at?\r\n\r\n#### Possible outcomes\r\n\r\nI hope to get to one of the following outcomes of this discussion:\r\n\r\n- There is no need to be prescriptive in any way as to what the metadata payload format should be. This is the status quo.\r\n- There is value in standardizing the metadata payload for RS and we come up with a spec. We will come up with a spec and implementation in this case.\r\n- It may be useful to specify a default metadata payload format, which can be overridden if required by mime type negotiation as it exists today. We will come up with a default spec and implementation in this case.\r\n\r\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"NiteshKant"}}