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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:57:37 +1100
Cc: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <56549860-E3C3-4310-B6FD-BD9F0FDC283B@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I don't think that's the case, Julian. Alt-Svc is used for many things; William has so far only expressed a reservation about one use case. Likewise, Rob's message was just about upgrade, not other uses of Alt-Svc.


On 20 Mar 2014, at 6:55 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 07:58:17 UTC

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