W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt

From: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:10:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJg1=2jyPaCZvf3duW8TjMyUY1TCCfarQ=Gws0ZBM1r-Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>  It does seem that someone should answer the question, "Why not use DNS
> for this?"  There's even a reasonable answer, which is that because this is
> a header, you are piggybacking it with data.
>

Also, the proposal calls out:

     "Potentially, there are many ways that a client could discover the
alternate service(s) associated with an origin; this document currently
defines one, the Alt-Svc HTTP Header Field (Section
3<https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/0/?ui=2&ik=4eec3a08b8&view=att&th=141bb1ffe146a105&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P-Vj6Fz34Aqfn-A88HAaDut&sadet=1381863805889&sads=n52BEL0aHy8e1yfX6ATY1reYbCA#0.1_alt-svc>
)."
It would seem logical then that DNS could *also* be used for this with the
same alt-svc data schema and semantics, with the values obtained via DNS
and piggybacked with data being merge-able, as per:

     "Note that priorities are not specific to the mechanism that an
alternate was discovered with; i.e., there is only one “pool” of priorities
for an origin."
Piggybacking this with the HTTP response/data may have a lower deployment
barrier than introducing a new DNS RR type, plus there may be some ways of
using this that are not possible via the DNS.

      Erik





>
> On 10/15/13 3:57 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>  We talked about using a response header for negotiation last week, a la
> Alternate-Protocol, and one of my action items was to isolate the Alt-Svc
> proposal.
>
> This draft is a first cut at proposal. I'm particularly interested on
> feedback from client implementers on the straw-man interop testing proposal
> at the bottom.
>
> Cheers,
>
> P.S. Friendlier HTML attached.
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt
> > Date: 15 October 2013 12:54:42 AM PDT
> > To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> <mnot@mnot.net>
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Filename:      draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc
> > Revision:      00
> > Title:                 HTTP Alternate Services
> > Creation date:         2013-10-14
> > Group:                 Individual Submission
> > Number of pages: 13
> > URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt
> > Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc
> > Htmlized:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   This document introduces "alternate services" to allow an HTTP
> >   origin's resources to be available at a seperate network location,
> >   possibly accessed with a different protocol configuration.
> >
> >   It also specifies one means of discovering alternate services, the
> >   "Alt-Svc" header field.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 19:10:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC