- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:57:37 +1100
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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. Cheers, 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