W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:31:50 +0000
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <569562B6.904@cs.tcd.ie>

On 11/01/16 16:45, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 11/01/16 16:34, Mike Bishop wrote:
>> Haven't heard back from Stephen on the port-change issue we wanted
>> him to weigh in on; I sent him a reminder.
> 2nd one worked:-)
> Lemme go back and read the mail. Please hassle me if I've not
> gotten back by tomorrow sometime

So as I understand it (thanks Barry), the issue is whether or not
this text is ok:

  "Clients can reduce this risk by imposing
   stronger requirements (e.g. strong authentication) when moving from
   System Ports to User or Dynamic Ports, or from User Ports to Dynamic
   Ports, as defined in Section 6 of [RFC6335]."

FWIW, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure quite what it's
telling a client to do, but I don't think there's much difference
these days between lower numbered and higher numbered ports. (If
that's wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me:-)

Note that I've not read the rest of the document, just that bit.


> Cheers,
> S.
>> -----Original Message----- From: barryleiba@gmail.com
>> [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Sunday,
>> January 10, 2016 9:20 AM To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 
>> Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org; HTTP Working Group
>> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Subject: Re: AD review of
>> draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
>>>>> I don't think this is a 2119 "MAY": what *else* can it do?  You
>>>>> have no other guidance about which alternative alternative to
>>>>> pick, so....  I think this should just say, "it chooses the
>>>>> most suitable...."
>>>> Agreed. I haven't changed that yet as it affects normative
>>>> language but I will unless somebody wants to defend it soonish.
>>> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/a9df1e33703a2cb46c9b
> 441bfca5bbc04fff80d1>
>> Nice.  Is this the last of the updates, or are we still working on
>> any?  Whenever you're ready to post a new I-D version, I'll give it a
>> check and request last call.
>> Barry
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 20:32:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:10 UTC