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

Re: What is a specification for? [was Re: Calculating Age Question]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 03:29:25 -0800
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9611290329.aa11541@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> FWIW, I think the age calculation is conservative to a fault and would
> prefer to see it change, but I don't share Roy's passion.
> 
> I consider the issue of whether or not to add an Age: header (with any
> value) to a response that was NOT served from cache to be a different issue
> entirely, and feel more strongly that a proxy should not add an Age: to a
> fresh response.

Just to clarify, that is the only objection I have related to the age
calculation.  The rest of the algorithm is fine, as I said before, and
I have yet to see a technical argument from *anybody* which would indicate
that the part I object to is not in error.  The only responses I have
received are churlish suppositions about my philosophy of HTTP caching
being different from others, and statements that it wasn't "significant
enough" to justify generation of a new draft before IESG approval last
summer.  In fact, our last discussion on this subject ended with (what
appeared to me) a clear consensus that it was an error that would be
placed on the Issues list for the next revision, and thus it was
appropriate to steer implementers away from the error.

If someone has such an argument that doesn't involve childish assumptions
about my intentions, please do let us know.  I would rather be proven wrong
than be left in doubt, since this does have a significant impact on the
cachability of HTTP and thus the core of what I spent two years of my life
working towards.  Please forgive me if I am passionate about it.

......Roy
Received on Friday, 29 November 1996 03:41:13 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:18 EDT