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

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> I think that this would absolutely have to be optional.  I don't think
> that we can realistically force implementations to do things with
> Alt-Svc.
>
>
As I mentioned at the mic yesterday - due to the asynchronous nature (both
in terms of time and network topology) of Alt-Svc any kind of requirement
is unenforceable in the same way that Priority is unenforceable. So no
matter your feelings on the efficacy of the approach, there is no reason to
put requirement langauge around it beyond the implicit must parse, must not
panic, etc..