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

Finding consensus on alt-svc, was: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc as a normative reference in http/2

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:19:57 +0100
Message-ID: <532A969D.7040709@gmx.de>
To: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-03-20 07:52, Rob Trace wrote:
> My recollection is the same as Will’s with regard to the discussion and
> consensus in London.

I agree that we should have invested more energy for this discussion in 
London. That being said, the IETF meetings and interim meetings can not 
make any decisions - what will count is the rough consensus over here, 
right now.

> It is correct that we are interested in using Upgrade and not Alt-Svc
> for upgrading HTTP URIs from HTTP 1.1 to HTTP/2.  I am not aware of

My understanding is that Microsoft thinks that Upgrade on port 80 is 
going to work well enough in practice that no other mechanism is needed. 
Apparently, the other implementers do not believe this, or are opposed 
to this for other reasons. It would be awesome if there were actual 
numbers on success rates to inform the rest of us.

I personally would love to see this work, as, after all, this is how it 
was *supposed* to work. But even if it does work, a way to advertise an 
alternative way, potentially using OE, sounds good to me as well.

> anyone who is planning on implementing Alt-Svc for this scenario, but
> maybe there is someone out there who wants to support this/.. In

We heard about experiments in Firefox. That shows that at least one 
developer was sufficiently interested to experiment with it.

> addition, we are not planning on implementing TLS for HTTP URIs at this
> time and we definitely prefer explicit TLS with HTTPS URIs.  We are not
> planning on supporting the asymmetric load balancing or the SNI
> scenarios at this time.
> I agree that most people have not changed their position since London.
> In particular, I do not want to see the Alt-Svc work further delaying
> HTTP/2. Again my recollection was that there was strong consensus that
> this work was not going to block HTTP/2.  It follows that this reference
> should not be normative to prevent creating a dependency. *//*

My recollection was that this shouldn't block, and *therefore* it needs 
to become a WG work item as soon as possible. However, what I recall may 
be side discussions.

In any case, the place to make decisions is *here*, not at face-to-face 

> I am looking forward to the updated text which will give us something
> definitive to discuss..
> Thanks!!
> -Rob
> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 07:20:35 UTC

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