Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

On 11/02/2016 10:31 a.m., Mike Bishop wrote:
> I agree.  For example, if the proposal of using a .well-known URI to
> delegate to an Alt-Svc gets traction and becomes an RFC, it could
> just update Alt-Svc to define that as having assurance as well.
> 
> Note that h2c on the same port doesn't need Alt-Svc, since the
> Upgrade: header from the server is already defined.  So what we're
> really talking about is h2c *on a different port*.  Honestly, I think
> if we put it on a different port and publish an Alt-Svc pointing to
> it, we might as well go direct (i.e. don't Upgrade from HTTP/1.1 on
> the new connection), which would need a new token anyway.

Isn't that the point of Alt-Svc though? to have *both* servers able to
deliver the resource, and to inform client of the non-usual alternative
rather than the normal server always 302 redirecting.

Amos