Re: #34: Alt-Svc-Used indicator granularity

Sounds good to me as well.

Best regards, Erik


On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 2015-01-21 07:01, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> <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?
>> ...
>>
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>