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

RE: Adopting Alternative Services as a WG product

From: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:38:44 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
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: <0d21206ec5384ab1b6a6d9cfd22a646f@BL2PR03MB372.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I think I have stated this before but we are neutral to this as long as it does not further delay HTTP/2.  It is not something that we are interesting in implementing at this time.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:29 PM
To: Roberto Peon
Cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)"; Julian F. Reschke; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: Adopting Alternative Services as a WG product

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:

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.


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 21:39:29 UTC

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