Stream: bulk data
Topic: X-Progress header name
Gino Canessa (Jun 12 2019 at 23:03):
Hi everyone, during Dan's Bulk-Export talk here at DevDays, I noticed that the Bulk-Data spec there is a defined header for X-Progress. IETF guidance ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 ) deprecates the X- prefix for headers and instead recommends using a meaningful name with a reasonable expectation of being unused.
As a note, the only reason I thought of it was because someone else brought it up during an Argonaut-Subscriptions call.
In any case, something along the lines of fhir-bulk-export-progress may be more appropriate instead of the X-Progress name.
Dan suggested posting here, so thanks!
Josh Mandel (Jun 12 2019 at 23:07):
It may have been worth fixing if this had been identified during our year of testing or during our official ballot review. Today: we're just talking about a naming convention, and I don't see any reason to break/change from X-Progress. Looking forward, as we define new headers, we should keep these conventions in mind.
Josh Mandel (Jun 12 2019 at 23:07):
Anybody think this is ill advised?
Gino Canessa (Jun 13 2019 at 04:35):
Quite possibly! I did not check where the bulk export was status-wise, hoping that the more-informed on this stream would inform me. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
Jenni Syed (Jun 14 2019 at 14:51):
Didn't catch this one. Drat. I've been trying to comment when I see this, though success with getting this pattern changed in FHIR hasn't been consistent. EG GF#19312
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
