- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:46:13 +0100
- To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-03-19 21:23, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: > ... > I agree that we don't need to make a normative dependency on a header > field definition. My interest in removing this as a normative dependency > is because many people are confused about the HTTP/2 spec explicitly > defining how to do TLS for http:// URIs. Yet, my feeling is that > some/many/dunno of us don't want to block the HTTP/2 spec on this, and > want to decouple that. Therefore, I think we should discuss explicitly > decoupling that from what we're depending on in HTTP/2. > ... Again, the header field can be used by a server to indicate an alternative service. There is (or shouldn't be) any requirement to honor it. Would you feel better if the header field would be in yet another spec? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2014 20:46:42 UTC