Re: Adopting Alternative Services as a WG product from Martin Thomson on 2014-03-25 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2014)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:52:32 -0700
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, 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: <CABkgnnWSu0wkVsJmMzSa2phFc0-iKFN+fkLLC9zkpWwVnOjsjw@mail.gmail.com>

On 25 March 2014 15:55, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2014 14:29, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> Martin, please consider the corresponding pull request as editor-ready and make adjustments / ask questions as you see fit.
>
> On it.  I noticed a few things myself.  I'll catch Roberto's concerns
> at the same time.

OK, we're golden.  The only things I didn't do, but would like to, are:

a) I'd like to lose the reserved bits.

b) Like Roberto, I'm made uncomfortable by the asymmetry of the stream
0/not stream 0 uses of the same frame.  Can we remove the
stream-related use of ALTSVC and require that it be on stream 0?  The
Alt-Svc header field should suffice for stream-related tasks.

Would this be strictly worse if I did these?

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 23:52:59 UTC