Hi Cory, I think your questions are probably good implementation-oriented ones but less about BCP to my mind. If there is something worth documenting, my instinct is a separate document that compliments RFC7838. To answer: On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 22:46 Cory Nelson, <Cory.Nelson@microsoft.com> wrote: > Two questions I had while implementing Alt-Svc, and ended up looking at > other implementations for guidance: > > > > Is it valid to have Alt-Svc: clear followed by, on another line, more > Alt-Svc to replace the old services? > RFC7838 says about Alt-Svc: "The field value consists either of a list of values, each of which indicates one alternative service, or the keyword "clear"." So I think it is clear that it is invalid to have both clear and an alt-value. But what might be less clear is the expected failure mode if this does actually occur. > Is it valid for an authority to extend their lease by sending an Alt-Svc > for themselves? > If you mean is it valid for a selected alternative to advertise itself and therefore keep itself fresh, then yes, the alternative is fully authoritative and I think that this is captured in the specification. Cheers Lucas >
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2019 23:07:28 UTC