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

Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:15:56 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Mike Bishop <michael.bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, shares@ndzh.com
Message-Id: <56D96E44.80608@cisco.com>
Hi Mark,
> Hi Benoit,
> 
>> A clear sentence such as this one would have helped me:
>> OLD:
>>   This specification defines a new concept in HTTP, "Alternative
>>   Services", that allows an origin server to nominate additional means
>>   of interacting with it on the network.
>> NEW:
>>   This specification defines a new concept in HTTP, "Alternative
>>   Services", applicable to both HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 2.0, that allows
>>   an origin server to nominate additional means of interacting with
>>   it on the network.
> AltSvc is not specific to those two versions of the protocol; in theory, it could be used in HTTP/1.0, or in HTTP/3 if that eventuates.
This is the info that, written somewhere in the intro, would have helped me.
Admittedly, I'm not a HTTP expert, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Regards, Benoit
> 
> 
>> I overlooked this info in the following sentence, i.e. the fact that HTTP
>> header = HTTP 1.1:
>> 
>>   It defines a general
>>   framework for this in Section 2, along with specific mechanisms for
>>   advertising their existence using HTTP header fields (Section 3) or
>>   HTTP/2 frames (Section 4), plus a way to indicate that an alternative
>>   service was used (Section 5).
> The header isn't specific to HTTP/1.1; it could be used in HTTP/2 as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> .
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2016 12:52:46 UTC

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