RE: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** 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 Gabriel Montenegro on 2014-03-20 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2014)

From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:14:32 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <279d7175b6b648c893bb27ca3bd32a1a@BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

> In case of (a) (which is what IMHO the current authors of these specs
> prefer), HTTP/2 will normatively reference the alt-svc draft. In case of
 
Disagree. Just like HTTP/s does not reference normatively the PUSH strategies document nor the flow control algorithms documents. That's a good thing, since those documents don't exist.

> (b), all "users" of the alt-cvs framework will need a normative
> reference to the HTTP/2 spec, which looks weird to me.#

That seems like backwards layering.

The "users" of the alt-svc framework would need a normative reference to the alt-svc framework, which in turn can point at HTTP/2.

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 19:15:13 UTC