- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:56:28 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Jack Firth <jackhfirth@gmail.com>
- cc: Bin Ni <nibin@quantil.com>, Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Jack Firth wrote: > Yes you could make a status code, but I don't follow why you need a new > status code instead of reusing a generic 300 response with body explaining > they need to follow Alt-Svc. A special status code requires clients to > implement new behavior, and if they're doing that already can't they just > implement Alt-Svc support instead? No, because Bin wants to (as I understand it) force the next request that uses that origin to *forcibly* use the new alternative IP address. I'm pretty sure most alt-svc implementations will not do that but will rather reuse existing connections (since the spec allows that and it is much faster) and then switch to the alternative only once a connection to that has been setup... -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2019 07:57:29 UTC