- 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