Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ohto-ccpp-exchange-00

From: Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2000

  • Next message: Johan Hjelm: "Proposal: BOF on content-negotiation extensions to HTTP"

    From: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
    Message-Id: <200006130134.DAA01535@wsooti09.win.tue.nl>
    To: GK@dial.pipex.com (Graham Klyne)
    Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:34:16 +0200 (MET DST)
    Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, www-ccpp-protocol@w3.org
    Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ohto-ccpp-exchange-00
    
    Graham Klyne wrote:
    >Hi Koen,
    
    Hi Graham,
    
    >Did you see the proposal I made to not try and carry profile structuring 
    >information as part of the protocol?
    
    Yes, and that would work for me too.
    
      [Koen:]
    >>Also, if you are serious about making Vary more useful, you should
    >>also specify a 'preferred http-ext namespace number' (for example 50),
    >>which all user agents should use, if possible, when extending the
    >>request with a Profile http-ext header.  If user agents always
    >>generate these numbers semi-randomly. then two xx-Profile: yyy headers
    >>on two different requests but with the same yyy will seldom match
    >>because they have a different xx number.
    >
    >Interesting point... isn't this something that might be addressed more 
    >generally in HTTP extensions?  (I'm tempted to say that Vary: might be made 
    >extension-aware, but that's too tall an order.)
    
    Yes, other protocols using http-ext might also want to define a
    preferred number for themselves, so this could be generalised.  The
    http-ext RFC is published now though, and I don't expect to see
    revisions to it appear in the near future, so the point is a bit
    academic.
    
    >
    >#g
    >
    
    Koen.