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

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:39 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> I've asked a few people, and their recollection (and mine) is different
>> from yours. The minutes also seem to support my interpretation.
>>
>
> I'd appreciate those people coming up and stating that. I'm honestly just
> saying what I remember, and I'm fine with people disagreeing with my
> understanding of what happened. I just don't want it to happen quietly. I
> mean, Pat, is my description that far off from what you remember? I
> remember you telling me that Stephen was confused about when was
> appropriate for him to argue the case for opportunistic encryption. And I
> remember being at the mic when the hum was taken and saying that I wasn't
> sure what we were agreeing to in the hum.
>
>
So I haven't talked to Mark about this (so I'm not even in his un-listed
list above), but my recollection matches his. I distinctly remember walking
out of the room with a sense that we had come to a good place, where
basically every intended use case (plaintext http://, https://, and
http://-over-TLS)
was going to be documented as part of the spec. The question of whether or
not some things would be in a (normatively-referenced) separate document or
not was still a little up in the air, but I was definitely under the
impression that there would be normative references involved if
http://-over-TLS
wasn't placed directly in the main spec. My general feeling on that was
that we had agreed to put the ALTSVC frame, and mechanism for http://-over-TLS
in the main spec, with the new Alt-Svc header for HTTP/1.1 in a separate
document.
-- 
Peace,
  -Nick