W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

alt svc issue #125 alternative of alternatives vs invalidation

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:33:11 +0100
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <566DABD7.8010800@gmx.de>
On 2015-12-10 22:24, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 10 December 2015 at 22:58, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> So if you have Origin -> alt1 -> alt2, then you keep only alt2 and don't
>>> have a list.
>>> I therefore propose to remove the "or, an alternative service might
>>> itself advertise an alternative".
>>
>>
>> Sounds right to me. What do the others think?
>
> I agree, the context for the statement is wrong, so it becomes misleading.
>
> I think that the intent of the statement is important to preserve
> somehow.  Just looking, the second paragraph of 2.4 might be a better
> home:
>
> Therefore, if a client becomes aware of an alternative service, the
> client SHOULD use that alternative service for all requests to the
> associated origin as soon as it is available, provided the alternative
> service information is fresh (Section 2.2) and the security properties
> of the alternative service protocol are desirable, as compared to the
> existing connection.
>
> ADD: An viable alternative service is then treated in every way as the
> origin; this includes the ability to advertise alternative services.
> ...

Sounds good. See <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/125> 
and 
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c7aea292e319ad9a110a7d1b5c812035e960880c>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 13 December 2015 17:33:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC