W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Possible New Optional Field in Heade

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:36:23 PDT
To: DLEVINE@ssf4.jsc.nasa.gov
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <95May10.123630pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> SHOULD this be on www-talk?

If "mxb" and "mxs" are in the draft of the HTTP spec, it's legitimate
for http-wg to discuss their utility.

As for a client-supplied link-speed estimate, I'll just point out that
this is something that the server may be in a better position to
estimate than the client. First, it may be the server's end of the
connection is the performance bottleneck (the client is on a T1 and
the server is at the end of a 14.4). Since server load is often the
determining factor in response time, the server is usually in a better
position to judge 'how fast' the request will be satisfied. The server
may have more history of the response time for other clients from the
same domain.
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 1995 12:37:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC