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

Re: feedback on draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:53:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYjmO39iTDY5vxHGf9zRX=8ACym6WPmRRWu7oQJPJjAXfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
When we say we want to do this, does that mean we have to put in Section
3.6 [1] too in the HTTP/2 spec or something normatively referenced?

[1]:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-03#section-3.6("Proposal:
Discovery of TLS Support for http://URIs")


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2014-03-06 14:41, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>> On 6 March 2014 11:48, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, it depends on the schedule for the document as compared to http/2 and
>>> how we tie up other aspects, I guess..
>>>
>>
>> Unless we want to rewind on some of the decisions we've made, I only
>> see two options:
>>
>> 1. Make Alt-Svc a normative reference of HTTP/2, effectively including
>> its contents by reference, much as we are doing with HPACK.
>> 2. Inline Alt-Svc.
>>
>> In both cases, we don't get to publish HTTP/2 until Alt-Svc is done.
>>
>> I know that we are trying to ensure that inlining doesn't happen, but
>> I think that in this case, there is an advantage to it.
>>
>
> That's why I was bringing it up. Let's decide this ASAP; I believe if we
> do it we can have a separate document ready early enough.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2014 13:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC