- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:31:03 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: paulle@microsoft.com (Paul Leach)
- Cc: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, koen@win.tue.nl, http-caching@pa.dec.com, jg@w3.org
Paul Leach:
[Koen Holtman:]
>>If you have two orthogonal mechanisms, you can't have them share the
>>same space in the Cval: header.
>This sounds to me like you're confusing protocol mechanisms and
>implementation mechanisms. There are two orthogonal protocol mechanisms
>here, but in any server, I would imagine only one implementation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>mechanism, which would _indeed_ share the same variant-id scheme. Hence,
>I don't agree that the design principle you invoke applies to this case.
I think the response I just sent to Roy explains why this reasoning is
wrong: there will _not_ be one implementation mechanism, placed in the
origin server, assigning variant-ids for responses of a particular
resource. Such mechanisms can also be present in all proxies in front
of the origin server, because these will want to do preemptive
negotiation on behalf of the origin server.
If only the server assigned variant-ids, we could allow it to mix the
data of the alternates-part and the variant-part into an opaque token
in an undefined way. But this is not the case.
>Paul
Koen.
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 1996 08:09:04 UTC