Re: Adopting Alternative Services as a WG product

I support this proposal.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2014-03-21 00:42, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> In London, we agreed to use the Alternative Services approach to satisfy
>> issue #349 (Load Asymmetry).
>>
>> In subsequent discussion at the Design Team Meeting, it seemed like the
>> most reasonable approach to doing this would be to publish the non-HTTP/2
>> specific parts in a separate draft, while keeping those parts specific to
>> HTTP/2 in the main spec (in particular, the ALTSVC frame).
>>
>> I've just submitted draft -04 of Alternative Services:
>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-04
>> under consultation with Martin and Patrick.
>>
>> In parallel, I've just made a pull request to add the HTTP/2-specific
>> parts, with appropriate references:
>>    https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/439
>>
>> As discussed, neither of these proposals contains language about HTTP://over TLS or opportunistic encryption; that discussion is separate.
>>
>> Also as discussed, none of this places any requirement upon a recipient
>> to do anything special for ALTSVC beyond not blowing up when it's
>> encountered.
>>
>> Please have a look at these and raise any concerns you have. The plan is
>> to convert the draft to a WG document, and Julian has graciously agreed to
>> take over its editorship.
>>
>
> Stating the obvious: I support this proposal.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>