Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt from Martin Thomson on 2013-10-15 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2013)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:30:09 -0700
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV3pPbo7HGNAukDCk3U6Jw=brVvDduSSrYNtXG_Ym0AEQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 15 October 2013 00:57, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> We talked about using a response header for negotiation last week, a la Alternate-Protocol, and one of my action items was to isolate the Alt-Svc proposal.

Brief comment:  You should identify protocols, not URI schemes.
Preferably, that identification should use the same identifiers that
are used in other places.

ALPN (and NPN) deployments currently identify "http/1.1", and there
are strings in the ALPN draft that are also (apparently) in use.  Even
if the "spdy/1" string might not be relevant, I think that "spdy/3" is
widely used.

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 17:30:37 UTC