Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Alt-SvcB

If we're looking to make a separate system here, with Alt-Svc still
existing for a while, should we make a separate draft to patch up some of
the more glaring mistakes in Alt-Svc? Or perhaps a paragraph in this one.
I'm specifically thinking about how Alt-Svc tries to circumvent the
TLS-level ALPN negotiation. For HTTPS/SVCB, we picked a more nuanced
interpretation. Otherwise implementers may not know that Alt-Svc
misunderstood ALPN and that they need to ignore the spec on this point.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 1:04 PM Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> I agree with the point of "deprecation" meaning "please use Alt-SvcB for
> future alt-svc uses" and not "immediately stop using its predecessors"
> however that needs to be appropriately phrased.
>
> > Can somebody quantify the relative proportion of clients that can't do
> HTTPS RR?
>
> Windows supports SVCB but not HTTPS at the moment, but that will change in
> a future release. Browsers of course tend to support far older OS versions
> than we prefer to backport changes to, which will not be a unique situation
> among OS platforms. This just lends to the statement about what
> "deprecation" means.
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy
>
>