Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/QUIC without Alt-Svc? (#253)

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

I'm thinking about this in terms of clients that don't have tcp support. If
we're really talking about origins that don't have tcp support instead,
then I think a new scheme makes more sense.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> But is that kind of behaviour prohibited by the sections of RFC 7230 that
> Mike quoted?



I tihnk 7230 is defining what http and https schemes mean in terms of
namespaces and default reachability (which goes back to a origin does
indeed need to be able to publish a tcp version in order to use an https
scheme, but it don't require all accesses to happen that way)

This is sort of self evident even ignoring quic, we've already got alt-svc
changing routes and proxies obscuring DNS and addressing, caches which
don't need e2e transport at all , etc.. all of these things get data
identified by the same url via mechanisms that are bootstrapped (sometimes)
outside of the default interpretation..

I don't think a client that doesn't speak tcp is doing anything wrong by
just trying quic on an https url.. A more conservative reading of 7230
might indicate that QUIC for https:// even via alt-svc was non compliant
because it wasn't TCP and I don't think any of us believe that we need to
update 7230 to allow it.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/253#issuecomment-276928650