Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc

On 2 July 2014 16:22, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Martin opened two similar issues:
>   <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/7>
>   <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/8>
>
> ... regarding how to handle multiple advertised alternative services.
>
> Personally, I'm not sure we need to specify this (see my comments in the
> issues).
>
> What do others think? Martin, any further thoughts?
>
>
Regarding ext#7, if I recall correctly whenever a list includes q-values we
don't tell anyone how to use them, beyond "bigger means better". (RFC
2295/2296 are experimental; does anyone else implement them?) I wouldn't be
against adding q-values to the alt-svc header to indicate a server-side
preference, if such a thing makes sense ("You can also get this here, but
I'd prefer you didn't"..?)

Currently any parameter is allowed, right? Even though only "ma" is defined.


Regarding ext#8, I'm actually interested to see the outcome of the decision
because my draft for compressed DATA frames has an equivalent "single
setting, multiple encodings" issue. If ALTSVC sets a precedent for updating
(rather than replacing), I'll feel less uncomfortable about my extension
setting -- even if that means moving the setting to Yet Another Frame Type.


-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/