- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:00:03 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 Jul 2014, at 3:02 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 July 2014 23:22, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> Martin opened two similar issues: >> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/7> >> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/8> >> >> ... regarding how to handle multiple advertised alternative services. >> >> Personally, I'm not sure we need to specify this (see my comments in the issues). >> >> What do others think? Martin, any further thoughts? > > > I think that we probably need to have text to clarify what each means, > but it should be relatively simple: > > In both cases, I think that we can say that each advertisement of an > alternative service adds a new alternative to the set of alternatives > that is known to the client/recipient. > > Then, when multiple alternatives are present, we let the client choose > the alternative it likes best. > > Existing alternatives can have properties altered by selecting based > on the tuple [protocol, host, port] and providing new values for other > attributes. Here I'm thinking that we enable forcibly expiring an > alternative by adjusting max-age. > > I'm happy to provide a PR (or three) to this effect. WFM. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 00:00:36 UTC