- From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:37:49 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfQUzNeHOg2vshACGC-kWGL-2dfVBHP0C35zYyGnmro2Vg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > > On 2 Apr 2015, at 10:02 am, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Well, literally speaking it’s not an alternative; it’s the authority (the > thing that alt-svc provides alternatives *to*). > Yes, exactly. But since Alt-Svc lists alternatives, not authorities, it doesn't make sense to think that the authority is implicitly in the alternatives list. So if we're thinking about how to clear any alt-svc mappings that a client might have stored, it seems perplexing to propose that be accomplished by saying: Alt-Svc: <scheme>:<origin> Further, consider the case of an https:// origin which uses ALPN to optionally negotiate HTTP/2 but supports HTTP/1 for legacy clients. Does it need to list both h2 and http1? Sure seems more explicit to say: Alt-Svc: It *is* in the list of “places I can get stuff for this origin from”, > however. > Agreed! Cheers, Ryan
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 03:38:16 UTC