From: email@example.com (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: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com 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.