- From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:02:54 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfR0e4r-iW=d2jmT5OB04pDFkZJZU4z0RNcBx7G4pzYBUg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 April 2015 at 05:11, Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org> wrote: > > I think the simplest way to say "the alternative services for this > > origin is the following list: {empty list}" is to say "{empty list}" > > instead of "{one item identical to origin, which is understood to have > > the special meaning that it's an empty list}" or "{one item with valid > > but arbitrary port and a special, otherwise unused value for ma, which > > is understood to have the special meaning that it's an empty list}". > > That argument only makes sense if you don't consider the origin to be > a validate alternative. That it's implicit and always present isn't > of much consequence. > That's surprising to me. As I read the spec, Alt-Svc is all about specifying *different* ways to reach a server: ...document specifies "alternative services" for HTTP, which allow an origin's resources to be authoritatively available at a separate network location To me, that does not imply that the origin is present in the list of alternatives. If the origin is implicitly in that list, should Alt-Svc-Used be sent when using it? That doesn't seem reasonable to me, which makes me think that the origin really isn't implicitly part of the Alt-Svc list. Am I thinking about this the wrong way? Cheers, Ryan
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 23:03:21 UTC