For discussion: scope for AltSvc and ORIGIN bis efforts

´╗┐At the interim, we discussed Mike's draft to revise some HTTP/2 extensions to work with HTTP/3:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bishop-httpbis-altsvc-quic

After discussion, the most viable way forward seemed to be to revise both of those documents to include HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 mechanisms, rather than just creating a "patch" RFC that updates them for HTTP/3.

The Chairs support doing so, but want to see a well-defined scope of work for the effort.

As a starting point, we believe that the following should be in-scope for the effort:

* Porting the ORIGIN and ALTSVC frames to HTTP/3
* Incorporating errata
* Editorial improvements

Other changes would be out of scope. In particular, anything that is incompatible with the current definition or use of these frames in HTTP/2 would not be suitable.

However, improvements in how they are specified could be in-scope, provided that there is strong consensus to include them.

Comments on this scope -- including proposals for additions -- are welcome; we'll issue a Call for Adoption if we can get to a general agreement about that.

Cheers,

Mark and Tommy

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2020 22:37:15 UTC