- From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:13:42 -0400
- To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Cc: Bin Ni <nibin@quantil.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2019 13:14:20 UTC
Use of Alt-Svc instead of Location in a 3xx makes some sense to me for this very edge case of a single large xfer. Server side resource balancing is an important property, and if you have some really big resources it can really make the system unresponsive and paying the latency penalty that alt-svc normally avoids might be worth the cost... avoiding the state where you have the same resource under a lot of different URIs is a good goal. Its going to be hard to bootstrap in a backwards compatible way though On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:11 AM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 19:56, Bin Ni wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > I explained this in my very first email: > > 3xx breaks cookie and https. > > You can give the second server a discrete name (so that it can use HTTPS) > and you can pass any state it requires in the URL (obviating the need for > using cookies to pass state). > >
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2019 13:14:20 UTC