- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:01:28 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/34> We took a hum about this in HNL, where it seemed that most people needed more discussion. The proposals we discussed were: 1) no alt-svc-used indicator (some support) 2) 1-bit indicator (no support) 3) multi-bit indicator (a little support - one hummer?) 4) full hostname (some support) 5) 1-bit or full hostname (some support) 6) don't know (most "support") Interestingly, though, there was no(!) support for the current solution, one bit. How do people feel now? My personal take -- From what I can tell, most of the uncertainty here is around the privacy properties of the indicator, and people seem to agree that the risk of abuse is present, but not severe. That seems to indicate something like "SHOULD send the alternative service hostname in the Alt-Svc-Used header field value, unless the client has been explicitly configured not to send it." This would allow browsers in privacy mode or similar to not send it, while still giving servers the kind of feedback they need; if a server really needs Alt-Svc-Used, they can 421 or drop the connection, and the client will stay where it was. In that sense, it's sort of in the spirit of #5. How do people feel about that? Or, are there alternative (hah) proposals? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2015 06:01:56 UTC