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

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