Re: feedback on draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc

If it is needed to help with the issue of load rebalancing, then it needs
to be referred to from within the http/2 spec.
Personally, I see alt-svc as an elegant way of solving a few problems at
the same time, and so believe it is important to be able to talk about from
the HTTP/2 spec.

So, it depends on the schedule for the document as compared to http/2 and
how we tie up other aspects, I guess..
If we could assume that an alt-svc doc would get done before http/2, having
it mostly as a separate doc would be preferable I think?
-=R


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 6 Mar 2014, at 11:35 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On 2014-03-06 12:19, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> What do other folks think about this?
> >>
> >> Personally, I'm OK either way, although it may be more expedient to
> keep it separate (i.e., only move over the frame type and other HTTP/2
> specific bits).
> >
> > Isn't that what I proposed?
>
> Yes; I'm asking what other people think. I know that it *seemed* like it
> was just you, me and Roy for some time, but things have apparently
> changed...
>
>
> >
> >> Thanks for the offer Julian, I may take you up on that. Or, should I
> say, MAY.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>