Re: Alt-Svc WGLC

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-12-15 16:35, Hervé Ruellan wrote:
>
>
> 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
>