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

Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:43:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUzbm-_Atffh295_kSNU_0hPE+rDvHg5F6LJiPtPzF6LA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24 April 2014 18:23, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> What do people think about the tradeoffs above, as well as doing this in general?

I'm still not 100% convinced.  I guess that it depends on how complex
you imagine the redirection chain will ultimately be.  For cases where
alt-svc is moving clients from a "first-hit" server to the "right"
server, then it's probably not that useful.  For load balancing
scenarios, it's fairly straightforward for clients to detect
flip-flopping and other pathological scenarios (similar in many
respects to redirect loop detection; the difference there being that
Referer and occasionally URL rewrites offer the server some hope of
finding problems).

If we do this, let's do it right.  A frame type that directly mirrors
ALTSVC (yeah, SVC might work) - maybe omitting only the expiration
time - is probably best.  That way a client can say to a server, I'm
asking about this origin, because I received the following ALTSVC
information.  You know, a client could just use ALTSVC.  Apart from
one thing....

We might want to examine this general mechanism for privacy purposes.
We don't need yet another channel for client fingerprinting.
Received on Friday, 25 April 2014 04:44:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC