W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: More small edits to draft 04a

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 16:17:06 MDT
Message-Id: <9606032317.AA05601@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: jg@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/764
Roy writes:
    >semantically transparent
    >   The use of a semantically transparent  cache would not affect either
    >  the clients or the servers in any way except to improve performance.
    >  When a client makes a request via a semantically transparent cache,
    >  it would receive exactly the same entity-headers and entity-body it
    >  would have received if it had made the same request to the origin
    >  server, at the same time.
    is seriously ugly.  A rewrite would be
    semantically transparent cache
      A cache that does not affect the semantics of a request and the
      resulting response.  A response is considered to be unaffected by
      the cache when the client receives a response equivalent to what
      it would have received if it had made the request directly to the
      origin server.

I think this leaves the definition of "equivalent" unbound, and omits
the notion of timeliness.

I do agree that the current wording is awkward and imprecise.  I'd suggest

   semantically transparent
      A cache behaves in a "semantically transparent" manner, with
      respect to a particular response, when its use affects neither
      the requesting client nor the origin server, except to improve
      performance.  When a cache is semantically transparent,
      the client receives exactly the same response (except for
      hop-by-hop headers) that it would have received had its request
      been handled directly by the origin server.

Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 16:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC