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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:22:15 -0700
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E6867105-08F4-4B74-8821-926AE23E7BAF@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On 15/10/2013, at 10:30 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 October 2013 00:57, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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.
> 
> Brief comment:  You should identify protocols, not URI schemes.
> Preferably, that identification should use the same identifiers that
> are used in other places.

That's the intent. The strings in the draft are just straw men; happy to clarify.

> ALPN (and NPN) deployments currently identify "http/1.1", and there
> are strings in the ALPN draft that are also (apparently) in use.  Even
> if the "spdy/1" string might not be relevant, I think that "spdy/3" is
> widely used.

Yes. The upcoming revision to http2-encryption will explore this a bit more. I haven't got hung up on the syntactic form yet; focus is on the semantics of the protocol identifier. 

I.e., shed colour advice gladly taken.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 19:22:38 UTC

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