- From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 13:19:36 +0000
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org, "Mike Bishop" <michael.bishop@microsoft.com>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, michael.bishop@microsoft.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, shares@ndzh.com
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-13: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A clear sentence such as this one would have helped me: OLD: This specification defines a new concept in HTTP, "Alternative Services", that allows an origin server to nominate additional means of interacting with it on the network. NEW: This specification defines a new concept in HTTP, "Alternative Services", applicable to both HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 2.0, that allows an origin server to nominate additional means of interacting with it on the network. I overlooked this info in the following sentence, i.e. the fact that HTTP header = HTTP 1.1: It defines a general framework for this in Section 2, along with specific mechanisms for advertising their existence using HTTP header fields (Section 3) or HTTP/2 frames (Section 4), plus a way to indicate that an alternative service was used (Section 5).
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2016 12:52:39 UTC