- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:24:24 +0100
- To: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "William Chan (ιζΊζ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-03-20 20:14, Gabriel Montenegro wrote: >> 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. ...and because HTTP/2 is self-contained with respect to that. >> (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. Hm, that just adds one indirection, but the problem is the same. To leverage alternate services, you'd always have a normative reference (indirectly) to HTTP/2. Why would that be a good thing? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 20:25:02 UTC