Hi,
Are you ok with the suggested member names?
Optional-Parts, Skip-Parts, Transfer-Encodings, Content-Encodings
Do we assume that these negotiations will happen infrequently in most
cases (because negotiated service group will be reused for many
transactions)? If yes, then I have no problems with the above names.
If we assume rather frequent negotiations, I would suggest
abbreviating the above: PO, PS, ET, EC.
I assume only few negotiations per connection, just to get service group
features negotiated. The SG parameter of NO/NR was the important thing we
introduced earlier.
Connections should then stay open and handle many transactions.
There will probably be some number of parallel open connections, so negotiation
will be repeated here and there, but this will still be infrequently compared
with the number of transactions handled.
If there are no further comments, I will use the long names here.
Regards
MArtin