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

(rephrasing, sorry for duplicate) | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding

From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 09:58:49 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <201612230758.uBN7wndh003154@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>: (Fri Dec 23 09:44:53 2016)
> You mean that on
>    "The client has requested the well-known URI from the origin over an authenticated 
>     connection and a 200 (OK) response was provided, and"
> authenticated connection is authenticated alternative.

Hmm. I need rephrase.  Sorry for duplicate mail.

Question is that well-known URI need to requested from all putative
alternatives or not?. Yes, you can not request that from clear text 
connection now.

But need you request it from new alternative service when you
are requsted from previous alaternative service?

In other words is there requirement that given alternative service
is tested ?

/ Kari Hurtta
Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 07:59:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 23 December 2016 07:59:21 UTC