Re: (rephrasing, sorry for duplicate) | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding from Martin Thomson on 2017-01-10 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2017)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:29:30 +1300
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVecMwwo-E6d9tsf6tuUR0WTj_mejwTUigoQRL4GyN_3g@mail.gmail.com>

On 11 January 2017 at 06:04, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:
> Client may want keep track which alternative services succeed
> and which failed when reading /.well-known/http-opportunistic

On the one hand, if a server advertises alternatives that are broken,
that really is a server problem.  On the other, clients do these sorts
of things all the time to improve robustness, so that's entirely
reasonable to do.  I just don't think we need to *require* it.

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 22:30:05 UTC