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

Re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc as a normative reference in http/2

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:11:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWi9mnA0_Vnuyd=WcHopRq=wj-=4xu5f_PO3iRY52g-zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19 March 2014 12:52, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> I believe we had reached rough consensus to include the header field as
> well; but it's good that you are bringing this up now.

I don't believe that we need to make a normative dependency on a
header field definition.  The existence (or absence) of a header field
shouldn't block progress on the frame definition.

That said, it's unclear to me whether a decoupling like this will have
any material impact on anything.  The hardest part of this work is in
defining what it means to add a new route to a given
origin/authority/server; the mechanical process of representing that
on the wire is pretty trivial.

I guess the concern here is the larger one: what is permitted to
re-route to what.  I would have thought that to be largely client
policy controlled, but I'm happy to have that discussion if people
feel like a standard should be setting this policy.
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2014 20:12:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC