IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 25 February 2016 13:24 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 966691AC405 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 05:24:25 -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=ham
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 Cu8d_p5ZA5N0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 05:24:24 -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 57D481AC406 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 05:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aYvpU-0007Ng-HQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:19:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:19:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aYvpU-0007Ng-HQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aYvpP-0007Mq-VL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:19:36 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aYvpM-0002n5-7L for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:19:35 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.123] ([5.10.171.186]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Mecqq-1aJREF1zxY-00OHWi; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:18:55 +0100
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com> <B7164F24-DDA1-4753-8A8B-04809B1965FF@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVfZu5e1fOAOAgaxPR=mRS+xv+oDFN1gHRUFamEk_=VtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB1374F3513049DBCB19D36BF287D70@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <56CEFF3F.8000602@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:18:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR03MB1374F3513049DBCB19D36BF287D70@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:0rntMXEUpGZVbgoNX0uAByw3OcKu338NjhhE7rWTdi6jbJwgGit SXCsX9fxtGnRLecSLUOJvUXqmYLBlNLeClBikh1LKCHlY+D79u2OcN1EvkJaPy3ogSvm9vJ bsF9fMaOPqpUBnkGeJyTqAUWY9oW3TjKjgI6Yl9WxGVC2Y+q8/N50lJiNDU6FuMflVcn/N9 5Py0ALKU9Z+dn+MhH0Jng==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:2R6nsORePWc=:8U74aQaHPodCZ1pkNqLOcb hc0u7wDZNl2fXaO2Wh6IkE9fksuY5Y8QRhA7yb8N3XPTxapZsiFRI8hWwxi4UbbKIqWEk6bBi N3b6c431LaHL8Qes9Uyf+NSRSmKOS0P+vOfTZJdrhWzsnEmlZdRQSDJh5EDNA68ks6qeAAlsR gI7fC9nqpPhSHR/OOjKeN57C/FW0nAdeh8DYTB0Z7162L1pmDbMLIS7ZCQykFy1Yol/VNZb/j JtNVCop7IAhtPNcQ+kzkUTyu8MvTK0oo/+ox9Eo5J7peWw+GGTFRfvuasLWCKLLXDER8GOIt0 EC7c6juGJSwxaV9FIYkGsm0+JPfSe7V60v78jNz3lUmleYyk2Wu5ehA5xzVgRDWCCyVpbeDfs qgLXM9VVYjchAya6BMm1OP4EyC9rGQeqV5TQ5NfbThKCGT85+KR6ATYqJvzVM2xSv/BWLobGg Y2fAGN1v2sN1Io9AUlpqwxH68B4qfdo6KQM4AvyGfyPtoyVphk2gp8VzndmQZ8fgLYh19NOQP 4zCabCzRLeZAho9EzR6tEBLkde3EDVqoipgCgw2YYdTABqdQ4RHlPLofibt4NFC7PBeQxoofU ycnILgy35l+OsiJYkuxbkCGE5Ztn68tdLADGsZQK19HPXdACS8rnjSSyVS6XUaxtB7k938uOV 2BcZp/88bhMIuo9WPip/ehAagEILLwEHGJGUFVhfOJvjPtYrnx+T/MjqWKaGPOW6h+1+BjtEi KYIu/6VzMEN9W9+nibJ3HHCi/pRZOUQ6ujZcL8tgomPj8K4MPh+k+StgeVP7eg4I4IWWD7+dp eljImak
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aYvpM-0002n5-7L 0b5262c3124df568565b45d58ba0b469
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/56CEFF3F.8000602@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31094
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>

On 2016-02-10 22:31, 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.

"new token" in what sense?

Best regards, Julian

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status