Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-13: (with COMMENT)
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 03 March 2016 03:14 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 B22FD1B3A79 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 19:14:45 -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 FVZ4iOtIEpOI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 19:14:44 -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 7A53D1B3A78 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 19:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1abJe9-00087y-5t for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 03:09:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 03:09:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1abJe9-00087y-5t@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1abJe4-00087H-Ln for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 03:09:44 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1abJdx-000101-RY for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 03:09:43 +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 597A922E272; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:09:11 -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: <3BBB4B1F-734F-4F32-9916-848B396512FB@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:09:09 +1100
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE10901C-054A-4120-89CA-302D89F6C00A@mnot.net>
References: <20160302032058.20029.17891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CY1PR03MB1374C907F49681B10F5F4F1987BC0@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <3BBB4B1F-734F-4F32-9916-848B396512FB@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
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=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.292, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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: maggie.w3.org 1abJdx-000101-RY 6fe71c2567e26a580d78606bc76a0e04
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-13: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/EE10901C-054A-4120-89CA-302D89F6C00A@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31161
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 Ben, See: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/36b220791cc7 Regarding this: >> 2.2 - Hypothetically, a more complex client might cache per network location and revive the cached entries when it returns to the network where it received them. > > That seems reasonable. It might be worth mentioning that in the text as an example of why one might not follow the SHOULD. I had trouble incorporating that in a way that didn't make the spec significantly harder to read. Also, IIRC a bigger reason for the SHOULD is that we're acknowledging that information about network state might not be available or reliable. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-… Ben Campbell
- RE: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-… Mike Bishop
- Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-… Ben Campbell
- Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-… Mark Nottingham