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

Re: Possible optimization to State-Info proposal

From: Bob Wyman <bobwyman@medio.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 18:35:27 -0800
Message-Id: <199508250144.SAA27683@dns.medio.com>
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>, "dmk@allegra.att.com" <dmk@allegra.att.com>, "http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
-- [ From: Bob Wyman * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

> With the recent addition to the proposal that clients stay in the "have
> state-info" state when there is no state-info in the server's (or cache's)
> response, this means that caches need not "reflect" state-info either.

Actually, "reflect" isn't the right word here. It's something more like
"forward."

I've been awfully tempted on many occaisions to make the same suggestion
that you have, with much the same reasoning. However, there are at least two
problems with the proposal:
	1.  HTTP V1.0 only says that the idempotent nature of GET and HEAD is "by
convention" -- it doesn't really state this as a requirement. Should we
write protocol that assumes the "convention" is being followed?
	2. If you remove the requirement for forwarding of State-Info, you break
the ability of servers to use State-Info for click tracking. This is,
unfortunately, one of the applications that State-Info is supposed to
support. If it wasn't for click tracking, I would whole-heartedly support
your suggestion.

		bob wyman
Received on Thursday, 24 August 1995 18:46:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:26 EDT