- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:17:23 +1100
- To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 2 Apr 2015, at 10:02 am, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 April 2015 at 05:11, Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org> wrote:
> > I think the simplest way to say "the alternative services for this
> > origin is the following list: {empty list}" is to say "{empty list}"
> > instead of "{one item identical to origin, which is understood to have
> > the special meaning that it's an empty list}" or "{one item with valid
> > but arbitrary port and a special, otherwise unused value for ma, which
> > is understood to have the special meaning that it's an empty list}".
>
> That argument only makes sense if you don't consider the origin to be
> a validate alternative. That it's implicit and always present isn't
> of much consequence.
>
> That's surprising to me. As I read the spec, Alt-Svc is all about specifying different ways to reach a server:
>
> ...document specifies "alternative services" for HTTP, which allow
> an origin's resources to be authoritatively available at a separate
> network location
>
>
> To me, that does not imply that the origin is present in the list of alternatives. If the origin is implicitly in that list, should Alt-Svc-Used be sent when using it? That doesn't seem reasonable to me, which makes me think that the origin really isn't implicitly part of the Alt-Svc list.
>
> Am I thinking about this the wrong way?
Well, literally speaking it’s not an alternative; it’s the authority (the thing that alt-svc provides alternatives *to*).
It *is* in the list of “places I can get stuff for this origin from”, however.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 00:17:53 UTC