- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 17:28:38 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-------- Julian Reschke writes: > > Personally I think the most sensible thing to do is to make it the job of the messaging layer (or lower) to negotiate it, and simply noting that expectation, *should* it ever happen, works for me. > > > > Issuing a standard without even having thought about revisions would be standardization malpractice IMO. > > Do you have a concrete proposal what to do? As I just wrote: Personally I think the most sensible thing to do is to make it the job of the messaging layer (or lower) to negotiate it (which semantic version), and simply noting that expectation, *should* it ever happen, works for me. Part of the reason why I think so, is that our experience so far indicates that traffic-steering is used to send "new traffic" to a dedicated set of "test-servers", so the earlier the choice can be made, ideally at the TLS layer, the better. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2021 17:28:54 UTC