Aspnetcore.docs: Should Fundamentals > Servers be streamlined?

[guardrex]

This was perhaps discussed and rejected ages ago when the current Fundamentals > Servers node and topics were created: Why is so much server configuration in a "fundamentals"-type of topic?

I think the entire node could be collapsed to a single Servers overview topic. The deep and extensive details on config for all servers (including an HTTP.sys config topic) could be moved back to Host and deploy. That's the way we largely handle IIS/ANCM here.

Any interest in seeing a PR like this to get an :eye:-dear on how it would compose?

cc: @Rick-Anderson @scottaddie @tdykstra @danroth27

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: f22dcddb-0c25-be1a-9a02-9e71dce86bdb
• Version Independent ID: 3e0e12c2-e544-5655-e001-d2ec180b11a8
• Content: Kestrel web server implementation in ASP.NET Core
• Content Source: aspnetcore/fundamentals/servers/kestrel.md
• Product: aspnet-core
• GitHub Login: @Rick-Anderson
• Microsoft Alias: tdykstra

[tdykstra]

Sounds good to me.

[Rick-Anderson]

@tdykstra owns TOC so if he says it's OK, it's OK.

[guardrex]

Cool ... it won't take long to take a shot at this. It's just a reshuffling of existing content.

I'll wait until after the current round of hosting/server doc updates is merged before I work this issue.

[danroth27]

@shirhatti

[shirhatti]

My naive answer is yes, but I'd hold off it for the time being. I wanted to do concerted SEO push (post 2.2 updates) and I assume this will just be an artifact of that.

[guardrex]

@shirhatti "this will just be an artifact of that" ... Do you want to take this issue, or do u want me to take the issue and wait until you signal me [your PR(s) are merged] before I work it?

[shirhatti]

Wait till I signal you 😄

[guardrex]

As part of this, we might want to take another look at how we're describing IIS HTTP Server. It's currently defined in the docs as ...

ASP.NET Core ships with the following server implementations: ...

... and IISHttpServer is in the list.

When hosting in-process, the module has its own server implementation, IISHttpServer.

Given https://github.com/aspnet/Docs/issues/9485#issuecomment-439707270 and thinking of it more as a layer of IIS, I wonder if:

• IIS should appear in the list instead of IIS HTTP Server. If IIS is the main server tech, there's no reverse proxy, and IIS HTTP Server is a layer within, that's a potential avenue to simplify how the docs explain the server options available.
• Instead of "has its own server implementation," it might state something along the lines of "has its own layer for processing native requests into managed requests."

[guardrex]

@shirhatti Am I still on hold here, or can I proceed with the updates?

[shirhatti]

@guardrex You can proceed