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

Re: draft-ietf-http-pep-02

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@merlot.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199608221911.MAA04790@merlot.arc.nasa.gov>
To: rohit@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, linehan@watson.ibm.com
Rohit,

On a general note, I would like to have some information on how PEP
would work with the current state management proposals.  In
particular, I can see a fair number of situations in which sites would
want to use cookies to keep track of which clients had already
negotiated certain protocol extensions.  There has already been a fair
amount of discussion about how cookies and caches will interact; will
those interactions stay the same if part of the state being managed
relates to protocol extensions?


Mark writes: 
>3. I (still) wish there were a matrix discussing the
>meaning of each parameter (str, scope, via, for, params) for each
>type of header (Protocol, Protocol-Request, Protocol-Info, and
>Protocol-Query).  I think some of the cells may be meaningless, and
>others may have ambiguous meanings.  I think the exercise of filling
>in such a matrix may bring clarity to this proposal.


I, too, would like to see us develop a matrix, but a broader one,
about when we can expect to use which methods for what negotiations.
My current understanding is:

Upgrade: Used to change versions of "vanilla" HTTP .

Transparent Negotiation: Used to negotiate resource alternatives,
based on "vanilla" HTTP headers.

PEP: Used to negotiate custom extensions to HTTP; these extensions
may transform a resource, alter delivery methods, and require
specific ordering of successive transformations/actions.

Obviously, each of these can interact with the others.  What do you
do, for example, when a client requests a resource which would
produce a List response, but where a PEP extension would allow the
delivery of a custom response?  My guess would be to return the list
response with a Protocol-Info: header, but it would be nice to see
some of this worked out.

It would probably be a bit easier for the working group to see
these interactions if we had a specification draft, as well as
a discussion-oriented draft.  Do you have one in the works now,
and if so when can we expect it?


				regards,
					Ted Hardie
					NASA Science Internet
Received on Thursday, 22 August 1996 12:53:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:08 EDT