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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:18:55 +0100
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Message-ID: <56CEFF3F.8000602@gmx.de>
On 2016-02-10 22:31, 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.

"new token" in what sense?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 13:19:36 UTC

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