Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 19:49:41 -0800
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87/275302052@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC advertisement description (#87)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_588971d5da233_6dd23fdec2e1f13c279b9";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/_jQCGwzG6nnwftbZrdZfTQu4fSU>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org

----==_mimepart_588971d5da233_6dd23fdec2e1f13c279b9
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have two minor comments about the text added to address this original issue:

1. The "optionality" of quic= parameter. I inferred this parameter is optional (Mike supported that in discussion), would it help to make a more explicit comment? Something like "absence of the quic parameter indicates the server has no preference to the QUIC version".

2. The language of the whole section speaks in the context of a server advertising HTTP/QUIC for itself, rather than an origin advertising an alternate service on a different host. Am I missing something here? Perhaps it would help to loosen the language a little?

-- 
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/87#issuecomment-275302052
----==_mimepart_588971d5da233_6dd23fdec2e1f13c279b9
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>I have two minor comments about the text added to address this original =
issue:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>The "optionality" of quic=3D parameter. I inferred this parameter is opt=
ional (Mike supported that in discussion), would it help to make a more exp=
licit comment? Something like "absence of the quic parameter indicates the =
server has no preference to the QUIC version".</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The language of the whole section speaks in the context of a server adve=
rtising HTTP/QUIC for itself, rather than an origin advertising an alternat=
e service on a different host. Am I missing something here? Perhaps it woul=
d help to loosen the language a little?</p>
</li>
</ol>

<p style=3D"font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mda=
sh;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<=
br />Reply to this email directly, <a href=3D"https://github.com/quicwg/bas=
e-drafts/issues/87#issuecomment-275302052">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a hre=
f=3D"https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkq5LfZXAcduO3ld7H=
r0mH_6j59IGSks5rWBfVgaJpZM4LPPhA">mute the thread</a>.<img alt=3D"" height=
=3D"1" src=3D"https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkqyMK1IA1Vcie6N-97=
1oq2B1oFhvqks5rWBfVgaJpZM4LPPhA.gif" width=3D"1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype=3D"http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop=3D"action" itemscope itemtype=3D"http://schema.org/ViewAction=
">
  <link itemprop=3D"url" href=3D"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issu=
es/87#issuecomment-275302052"></link>
  <meta itemprop=3D"name" content=3D"View Issue"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop=3D"description" content=3D"View this Issue on GitHub"></meta>
</div>

<script type=3D"application/json" data-scope=3D"inboxmarkup">{"api_version"=
:"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"Gi=
tHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"quicwg=
/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://clou=
d.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290=
892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/asset=
s/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name=
":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts"}},"updates=
":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@LPardue in #87: I have two mino=
r comments about the text added to address this original issue:\r\n\r\n1. T=
he \"optionality\" of quic=3D parameter. I inferred this parameter is optio=
nal (Mike supported that in discussion), would it help to make a more expli=
cit comment? Something like \"absence of the quic parameter indicates the s=
erver has no preference to the QUIC version\".\r\n\r\n2. The language of th=
e whole section speaks in the context of a server advertising HTTP/QUIC for=
 itself, rather than an origin advertising an alternate service on a differ=
ent host. Am I missing something here? Perhaps it would help to loosen the =
language a little?"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.c=
om/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87#issuecomment-275302052"}}}</script>=

----==_mimepart_588971d5da233_6dd23fdec2e1f13c279b9--