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

Re: Alternative Service Indication

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:34:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYj5aBwTft8-zWoG+hSkjiLJBEQoz9qZ+e1nxvLUvzbQsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 1 May 2014 18:40, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > * 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?
> Yes, please.
> > * It's interesting to me that this appears to be mandatory for clients. I
> > need to think about this more deeply.
> Erik and Mark seem convinced.  Me, less so, but I have to give these
> guys some credit for having to deal with issues that I don't think
> I've ever seen.

I definitely give them credit too, but I'm hesitant to proceed when no
other intermediary vendor has been asking for this. So yes, other vendors,
please chime in :)

> > * Does sending an ALTSVC frame play nice with connection sharing? I
> haven't
> > thought about it too much.
> Actually, I think that this is a net win for servers in that regard.
> But that alone probably doesn't justify it.  Servers get notified when
> clients decide to use alternative services.  I think that the previous
> question is the determining one for me.

Well, in Erik's justification (4):

"4) allow it to report load properly associated with
us-east-1.example.com, especially if other DNS names could have been used
to reach it."

I am not sure how to do this load attribution correctly if
us-east-2.example.com might also be pointing to it, as pointed out as a
possibility in Erik's email.
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 19:34:37 UTC

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