- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:33:11 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-12-10 22:24, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 10 December 2015 at 22:58, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> So if you have Origin -> alt1 -> alt2, then you keep only alt2 and don't >>> have a list. >>> I therefore propose to remove the "or, an alternative service might >>> itself advertise an alternative". >> >> >> Sounds right to me. What do the others think? > > I agree, the context for the statement is wrong, so it becomes misleading. > > I think that the intent of the statement is important to preserve > somehow. Just looking, the second paragraph of 2.4 might be a better > home: > > Therefore, if a client becomes aware of an alternative service, the > client SHOULD use that alternative service for all requests to the > associated origin as soon as it is available, provided the alternative > service information is fresh (Section 2.2) and the security properties > of the alternative service protocol are desirable, as compared to the > existing connection. > > ADD: An viable alternative service is then treated in every way as the > origin; this includes the ability to advertise alternative services. > ... Sounds good. See <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/125> and <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c7aea292e319ad9a110a7d1b5c812035e960880c>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 13 December 2015 17:33:44 UTC