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

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:22:14 +1300
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56BC0C76.7040202@treenet.co.nz>
On 11/02/2016 10:31 a.m., Mike Bishop wrote:
> I agree.  For example, if the proposal of using a .well-known URI to
> delegate to an Alt-Svc gets traction and becomes an RFC, it could
> just update Alt-Svc to define that as having assurance as well.
> Note that h2c on the same port doesn't need Alt-Svc, since the
> Upgrade: header from the server is already defined.  So what we're
> really talking about is h2c *on a different port*.  Honestly, I think
> if we put it on a different port and publish an Alt-Svc pointing to
> it, we might as well go direct (i.e. don't Upgrade from HTTP/1.1 on
> the new connection), which would need a new token anyway.

Isn't that the point of Alt-Svc though? to have *both* servers able to
deliver the resource, and to inform client of the non-usual alternative
rather than the normal server always 302 redirecting.

Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 04:22:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC