- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 18:40:31 -0700
- To: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA4WUYiMMjidi6GmKE_0a_uxU4JfoHEiM10aEOYzxeCBe+9Zhw@mail.gmail.com>
I somehow missed the previous discussion thread on it. Sorry about that. I have some comments now though :) * I'd like to hear more people discussing it. The only participants on the last thread that I saw were Martin, Mark, and Erik. Can others chime in? * It's interesting to me that this appears to be mandatory for clients. I need to think about this more deeply. * I need to think more deeply about how necessary this is. My default as a client is not to provide something unless there's a clear reason to do so. Are there any examples of things *breaking* without this? AFAICT from previous discussions, there are some server suboptimalities, and this would be nice to provide. I'm trying to evaluate how "nice" this is vs mandatory. I consider the Host header to be pretty important to the web as it operates today, but am unclear on how this compares. * Does sending an ALTSVC frame play nice with connection sharing? I haven't thought about it too much. Cheers. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote: > This looks good to me. > > Erik > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The discussion we've been having on this topic seems to have >> converged, or at least cooled a little. >> >> I've put together a pull request that combines the following changes: >> >> 1. Clients can send an ALTSVC frame to indicate the service that is in >> use. This is HTTP/2 only, obviously. The main advantage of this is >> that you can send a single frame. >> >> 2. Clients can send an Alt-Svc header field to indicate the service >> that is in use everywhere else. This has to be on every request >> (i.e., no change). >> >> 3. Remove the Service header field in favour of the above. >> >> 4. Add some security considerations around the use of these indicators >> for tracking clients. I was a little concerned about this at first, >> but now that I've done the thinking, the concern seems manageable. >> >> See the text here: >> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/474 >> >> --Martin >> >> >
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 01:40:59 UTC