- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:55:22 +0100
- 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 08:19, Julian Reschke wrote: > ... Trying to summarize what we heard so far (please correct me if I'm wrong): a) Rob Trace alt-svc is not needed (will use upgrade on port 80), work on alt-svc shouldn't block progress b) 陈智昌 alt-svc is useful (needed?), but doesn't want a normative reference to a document that includes a definition of the Alt-Svc header field, because he's not planning to support it I believe Rob's concern can be addressed by getting the work done ASAP. I believe William's concern can be addressed by making it crystal clear that although the spec defines an HTTP header field, support for that header field is purely optional. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 07:55:56 UTC