Re: Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12: (with COMMENT)
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 26 February 2016 01:07 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4693D1A039F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:07:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DVYLPNPg4T_m for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D26BA1A016C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aZ6nP-0000uo-DL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:02:15 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:02:15 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aZ6nP-0000uo-DL@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aZ6nI-0000sx-MS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:02:08 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aZ6nG-0005NM-3B for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:02:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9134D22E1F4; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:01:37 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160225235545.21405.95212.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:01:35 +1100
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org, Mike Bishop <michael.bishop@microsoft.com>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2859A72-1EE3-4D56-B5E8-D5EF7742E1E9@mnot.net>
References: <20160225235545.21405.95212.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.956, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1aZ6nG-0005NM-3B 7e8594aac033e95ebefc2ec95e81097f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B2859A72-1EE3-4D56-B5E8-D5EF7742E1E9@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31102
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Alissa, > On 26 Feb 2016, at 10:55 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: > > Couple of places where the language used was confusing for me: > > = Sec 2.4 = > > s/it can be used until the alternative connection is established./the > existing connection can be used until the alternative connection is > established./ That would make it: The client does not need to block requests on any existing connection; the existing connection can be used until the alternative connection is established. ... which is a bit repetitive. How about: The client does not need to block requests on the existing connection(s), which can be used until the alternative connection is established. > = Sec 3.1 = > > OLD > Unknown parameters MUST be ignored, that is > the values (alt-value) they appear in MUST be processed as if the > unknown parameter was not present. > > NEW > Unknown parameters MUST be ignored. That is, > the values (alt-value) in which they appear MUST be processed as if > the > unknown parameters were not present. https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/de90f7fe1a7e360 Thanks! -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt… Mark Nottingham