W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: First draft of negotiation requirements document

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:39:09 -0700
Message-Id: <9706171438.ZM2339@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3547
On Jun 17, 11:04pm, Koen Holtman wrote:
> Section 3 start of last paragraph:
> |Content negotiation based on User-agent strings also creates
> |difficulties for caching proxies,
> The same problems also exist for negotiation based on Accept headers.

I see no problem in changing it to:

"Content negotiation based on Accept headers or User-agent strings....",
if you think that meets the case.

> Section 5.2.1 end of first paragraph:
> | [TCN] describes a standard method for delineating
> |the axes along which a resource varies and a set of methods by which
> |caches can participate in the negotiation process.
> I assume that you mean that remote variant selection algorithms are in
> this set of methods.  In that case, it would be better to write
>  `a set of methods by which origin servers and proxy caches can
>  optimize the negotiation process.'

I think we still need to test whether or not they do optimize the
negotiation process.  I think it is very clear that they allow the proxy
caches to participate in the negotiation, but that we will need actual
data on hit rates using proxy-negotiated selections before we can
say that it works.  I agree that the current language is a bit weak, but
I think it would be more useful to find language which concisely describes
*how* they participate.  Any help you can provide there would be
much appreciated.

> Section 5.2.1 last sentence:
> |Many times, however, this process [elective negotiation] requires a
> |user to actively select among the resources provided, which reduces
> |perceived efficiency and increases perceived latency.
> I am not sure what you mean by `many times'.  Do you mean `for many
> methods of elective negotiation'?  You would always select by hand
> with the `click here for...' negotiation method you describe first.
> But for TCN, selection is automatic.  A list of variants for the user
> to select would only appear if the user asks for it, or in an error
> message if the user agent detects that every variant is completely
> unacceptable according to its configuration database.

I meant that the current user experience of elective negotiation commonly
involves a manual selection.  If it were replaced with:

"this proccess may require a user to select among a list of resources, which
reduces perceived efficiency and increases perceived latency."

would that work better?

Thanks for your comments,
				Ted Hardie

> Koen.
>-- End of excerpt from Koen Holtman
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 1997 14:41:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC