W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Alt-Svc with UPGRADE

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:13:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUdWiLwVvt0AfKQbBnMNGSvAtUbRWhrajvB+nwGGrsghw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 1 April 2014 01:24, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com> wrote:
> It would be great if the Alt-Svc response header is applied to the upgraded
> service (in this example, WebSocket, not HTTP).
> I think UPGRADE users not only WebSocket will be happy with that rule.

I'm not sure that the distinction is necessary.  This is a signal that
the resource identified in the request can (probably) be found by
using the identified alternative.  It shouldn't matter if an upgrade
occurs during the request.

Practically speaking, a client should complete the request, including
the upgrade.  Then they can make an assessment about whether to a) act
on the alt-svc suggestion, and then - if the alt-svc works - b) switch
over to using it.

This is a little more complicated for thewebsocketprotocol, because
there is an intrinsic state that is bound to a connection; the
original connection has something of a state commitment.  This is
different to HTTP/2, where there is basically no application-layer
commitment to the connection.

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2014 17:14:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC