- From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 12:41:57 -0600
- To: "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, "httpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <httpbis-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Mar 2016, at 12:36, Mike Bishop wrote: > 2.2 - Hypothetically, a more complex client might cache per network > location and revive the cached entries when it returns to the network > where it received them. > That seems reasonable. It might be worth mentioning that in the text as an example of why one might not follow the SHOULD. > I think your reading of MAY/SHOULD is correct. Using Alt-Svc itself > is totally optional -- but if you choose to, this is when you SHOULD > switch to a given alternative. I suspect the "if you choose to" part was intended to be implied by "if a client becomes aware of an alternative service...", with the idea that only clients that implement this would "become aware". But I think it would be more clear to say something like "If a supporting client becomes aware..." Thanks! Ben.
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 18:42:26 UTC