W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Age calculations in HTTP 1.1 11/21/97 document

From: Burt Silverman <burts@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:11:11 GMT
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <5010300015535499000002L092*@MHS>
Greetings HTTP Working Group,

I am hereby forwarding a note that I had sent to some colleagues. They agreed
that the response_delay is counted twice. My colleagues felt that the
apparent_age definition should stay as is, but that the corrected_initial_age
should equal the corrected_received_age exactly.

Can you look at this issue? Thank you.

Regards,

Burt Silverman, IBM Networking Division
---------------------- Forwarded by Burt Silverman/Watson/IBM on 23/02/98 15:58
---------------------------


Burt Silverman
20/02/98 16:45

To:
cc:
From: Burt Silverman/Watson/IBM @ IBMUS
Subject: Age calculations in HTTP 1.1 11/21/97 document

Hi,

Looking at section 13.2.3, I found that I could only make sense of the formulas
if I switched the definition of apparent_age from

apparent_age = max(0,response_time - date_value);

to

apparent_age = max(0,request_time - date_value);

For example, if in year

1981, the user sent a request
1989, date_value
1990, request from the cache to the server
2000, resonse_time
2001, now

then,
apparent_age = 1 year
response_delay = 10 years
corrected_initial_age = 11 years
resident_time = 1 year
and,
current_age = 12 years. This seems to make sense.

But with the official definitions,
apparent_age = 11 years
response_delay = 10 years
corrected_initial_age = 21 years
resident_time = 1 year
and
current_age = 22 years. This brings us back to 1979, and doesn't make much
sense.

Am I correct?

Burt
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 1998 03:38:11 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:13 EDT