Re: ORIGIN - suggested changes

Mark - thanks for this. I think we're really onto something and have hit on
the right balance of usefulness and simplicity. I've made a couple PR
comments - but briefly I think the only issue I might want to think harder
about is the interaction with ports that you have specified wrt alt-svc.

I'm eager to implement in firefox and I know of at least 2 CDNs and 1
server that are eager as well.

-P


On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I've done some more updating:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/285
>
> At this point, the diff isn't too helpful, so see attached.
>
> Changes include:
>
> 1. Removing set manipulation flags
> 2. Reserving some flags for future backwards-incompatible extensions
> (which makes me feel a bit better about #1)
> 3. Note impact upon Server Push
> 4. Added IANA Considerations and Operational Considerations
> 5. Lots of clarifications
>
> Feedback welcome, as always.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Feb 2017, at 12:30 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 2 Feb 2017, at 12:23 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2 February 2017 at 10:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >>> I don't buy the argument that removal itself adds complexity.
> Implementations already need to remember what origins they received a 421
> for, so they already have the concept of origin set removal.
> >>
> >> Well, you just established why it might be unnecessary.  The gain here
> >> is in the client not sending a request to the wrong place.  But if
> >> this is rare enough, then that cost is probably bearable.
> >
> > Right, but the whole point of ORIGIN is to avoid those situations.
> >
> >
> >> The "everything except those" case doesn't concern me that much.
> >> Iknow it's relatively common, but it is fairly rare that the set of
> >> origins that are used is not easily enumerable, or incrementally
> >> discoverable.
> >
> > Spoken like a true browser vendor :)
> >
> > It'd be good to get a bit more data here from server-side folks. Anyone
> share this concern? I note that Nick seems to be OK with it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>