Newbie looking to get involved

[jprider63]

Okay, I see what you're saying. Would an acceptable workaround be to use mail.www.example.com (included), docs.www.example.com (included), and static.example.com (excluded)?

Apparently not. The current standard for most large companies is to purchase a separate domain name for static content. I imagine most companies feel that doing so would be too verbose for their users.

[biolizard89]

Okay, I see what you're saying. Would an acceptable workaround be to use mail.www.example.com (included), docs.www.example.com (included), and static.example.com (excluded)?

Apparently not. The current standard for most large companies is to purchase a separate domain name for static content. I imagine most companies feel that doing so would be too verbose for their users.

Okay, so I think I'm fine with something like this being added to the Dot-Bit spec... that said, limiting it to cookies might not be the best way to do it. Maybe a "noheaders" field, which contains an array of HTTP request headers which should not be sent? That way you can remove cookies as well as stuff like content negotiation which also uses a decent number of bytes.

[jprider63]

Okay, so I think I'm fine with something like this being added to the Dot-Bit spec... that said, limiting it to cookies might not be the best way to do it. Maybe a "noheaders" field, which contains an array of HTTP request headers which should not be sent? That way you can remove cookies as well as stuff like content negotiation which also uses a decent number of bytes.

That sounds like a good idea as far as I can tell. Also, if you define "noheaders", it should probably apply to all subdomains of that map.

[biolizard89]

Okay, so I think I'm fine with something like this being added to the Dot-Bit spec... that said, limiting it to cookies might not be the best way to do it. Maybe a "noheaders" field, which contains an array of HTTP request headers which should not be sent? That way you can remove cookies as well as stuff like content negotiation which also uses a decent number of bytes.

That sounds like a good idea as far as I can tell. Also, if you define "noheaders", it should probably apply to all subdomains of that map.

Applying it to subdomains of the specified domain seems reasonable, as long as it can be overridden if specified for the subdomain explicitly. Unless anyone has objections?