Subject: Re: [httpwg/http-extensions] Specify how origin frames interact with Altsvc (#214)

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:51 -0700

Closed #214.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/214#event-1049748558

---

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:51 -0700

Current draft has:

> Finally, servers that allow alternative services {{?RFC7838}} will need to explicitly advertise
those origins when sending ORIGIN, because the default contents of the Origin Set (as per {{set}})
do not contain any Alternative Services, even if they have been used previously on the connection.

I think this addresses the concern.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/214#issuecomment-295555910

---

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:02:59 -0700

"those origins" might be better stated as "origins that have alternative services"

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/214#issuecomment-295561287

---

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:44 -0700

I changed it to:

> Finally, servers that host alternative services {{?RFC7838}} will need to explicitly advertise
their origins when sending ORIGIN, because the default contents of the Origin Set (as per {{set}})
do not contain any Alternative Services' origins, even if they have been used previously on the
connection.

... about five minutes ago. Good enough?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/214#issuecomment-295561427

---

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:04:30 -0700

Absolutely!

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/214#issuecomment-295561629

---

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 06:31:30 -0700

I'm not sure "because the default contents of the Origin Set (as per {{set}}) do not contain any Alternative Services' origins" is accurate.  Even with the current text, an Alt-Svc to a different server name but default port will be in the default set if it is what is used to establish the connection.  (ie, SNI is the Alt-Svc's origin and port is the default.)

The cases where this is relevant is when:

* Connections are being coalesced  (i.e., the Alt-Svc server name shares an IP address and port with an origin).  This can happen in the reverse, still making the new text here somewhat misleading.  If the connection from the Alt-Svc is opened first and then another with origin hostname tries to coalesce onto it, the SNI will be from the Alt-Svc origin hostname.  In this case, the SNI would be origin1.
* The weird issue with #331 and ports

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/214#issuecomment-296373526