W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Adopting Alternative Services as a WG product

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:29:04 +1100
Cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <688DCD42-23C2-4258-B77B-7FAEB25723FB@mnot.net>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
I think these are manageable concerns. 

I'm not hearing any pushback on adopting alt-svc, and as mentioned there's been a good level of support for it, so Julian, please fork draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-05 and create draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-00 in the http2-spec repository (I believe you already have access there).

Source is here:
  https://github.com/mnot/I-D/tree/master/httpbis-alt-svc

I'll leave it up to you to figure out whether you want to use the markdown or XML as source. :)

Martin, please consider the corresponding pull request as editor-ready and make adjustments / ask questions as you see fit.

Cheers,



On 26 Mar 2014, at 7:59 am, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like the bones of this, but don't like that the frame size on stream 0 is different from the frame size on stream !0.
> It is missing descriptions of what happens at proxies (i.e. it should be hop-to-hop) 
> 
> ints should probably be described as unsigned ints
> 
> the length of origin should be stated as length of payload - length of other fields, unless we follow the similar pattern elsewhere with other frames.
> -=R
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:33 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 21:28:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC