W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2019

Re: Alt-Svc and HTTP Extensions

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:10:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoCk9ufkRh_cDsG5AB9h8yKdmyJSjYDXb-6ztoQ8a9B2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:03 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>

This is a well explained predicate. thanks!

> So the question is, was it correct or fair for the HTTP/2 server to
> advertise the alternative that cannot satisfy the exact same desired
> properties of the active connection?

I would think if another service wasn't really an alternate for the scope
of the issued alt-svc then its probably a bug that would benefit from an
error code. alt-svc is not resource scoped after all. For most services,
however, this is a more narrow question than the exact same set of
properties.. extensions like origin or secondary certificates for example
might not be critical to still being an alternate for the scope of the
alt-svc.. websockets is a good example of something that would be a problem.

> It seems like a class of error similar to Misdirect Request, caused by
> accidental advertisement due to poor coordination. However, extensions may
> not be bound to request/response, so perhaps there might be some benefit in
> defining a new error code that allows an endpoint to reset streams or close
> connections.
> a new code makes sense to me.
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 20:11:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:02 UTC