Re: Alt-Svc WGLC

[Hervé Ruellan <[e-mail]>]

On 14/12/15 12:23, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> thanks for the feedback so far.
>
> With the latest changes for issues
> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/125> and
> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/126> (see also
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-latest-from-previous.diff.html>),
> I believe we're almost ready for a new draft and potentially IETF Last
> Call.
>
> The remaining open points are:
>
> 1) In
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015OctDec/0375.html>, Hervé
> asked for an example of an ALTSVC frame. I note that the HTTP/2 spec
> doesn't have any examples of frames either, so I'm inclined not to add it.

OK, I can live without the example.

> 2) In
> <https://github.com/hruellan/http-extensions/commit/fabd0943cde7e8af07f20b74acc2e48ac16e5f3e>,
> Hervé proposes a change that IMHO is not editorial as it affects a
> normative requirement. Feedback appreciated.

Yes, this affects a normative requirement. However my proposed addition 
is already in the spec, in the third paragraph of "9.2 Changing Hosts", 
which is referring to 2.1. I find it better to have the whole 
description in 2.1.

>
> 3) Mike Bishop proposed a change in
> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/101> which I was not
> happy with. Instead, I made the change
> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/acc3ae3c4290323069501d55ea8cdb5bacdbc6e8>
> (which is already in the WGLC draft FWIW). Is anybody not ok with this
> resolution?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Cheers,

Hervé