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

Re: Adopting Alternative Services as a WG product

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:34:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdz_F+0L9FyXYqR_xP3n3qtVtV62g9RvzCFUEGLFg7g=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I think these are manageable concerns.
>

These aren't even concerns. These are minor nits that seem easily addressed.
-=R


>
> 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 21:35:39 UTC

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