Subject: #69: Alt-Svc extension parameters

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 16:40:15 +1000

<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/69>

Julian points out that we should say how extension parameters are handled in Alt-Svc.

Straw-man proposal:

* must-ignore
* register with IANA, Specification Required (implies expert review)

Thoughts?

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Amos Jeffries <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:06:28 +1200

> * register with IANA, Specification Required (implies expert review)

Another straw-man:

 * must-ignore the service (not just extension)

Amos

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:25:37 -0700

>  * must-ignore the service (not just extension)

That's a stronger statement, but I think that it's a good tweak.

It means that I can require support of an extension in order to use the service.

It also means that if I want to add an optionally comprehended
attribute, I would need to repeat the service.  That works.  At least
until you have multiple attributes that are all independently
optionally supported. At which point, you might get a somewhat larger
than ideal header field.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:58:52 +1000

+1

> On 28 May 2015, at 2:25 am, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>