- From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:03:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Samuel Hurst <samuelh@rd.bbc.co.uk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrNYmE8ij9A82hf81gidp60KR7cXggX6WMogmNg1ZxdFg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> > wrote: > >> The text is referring to any failure - the client MAY want to try a >> different alternative in that case. Its just saying don't feel pinned down >> by an Alt-Svc announcement just because you started to use it - you can >> always use a different one (or the default) if you think it would work >> better. A 500 seems a reasonable input to that choice to me. >> > > Wow, really? Hm. While I understand your reasoning here, I don't love it. > I think I should underscore my point - these hosts form a set of equivalent alternates. If one of them isn't working well for you - using another one is a sensible thing. Errors that seem to be about the host, rather than the resource, seem like valid input into that decision. There is never a directive that you have to use any particular alternate.. the ordering indicates the server's preference but the client is not bound by that. > For example, what about 4xx errors? > other than the special case of 421, that's not related to the host or connection.. it should be a function of the origin and the request. so I wouldn't think that's a reasonable input to the algorithm. But it wouldn't be out of spec to panic and flush the alt-svc cache on seeing it (though not very helpful either). > Is it "safe" to advertise an alternative which is not current reachable > (I think so). > I think so too. That's definitely a connection error :) > What about one which 404s for all requests, or one which 500s every > request? Should this be considered "safe" for a server to advertise? > 500 is an unexpected error on the server, that's pretty different than a 404. > I'm not sure I have a terribly well thought out idea here, but this makes > me a bit nervous. > >
Received on Friday, 29 September 2017 22:04:11 UTC