Re: HTTP Caching Design

Koen writes:
    I would applaud it of someone would, sometime in the next few
    weeks, mail an edited version of the 1.1 draft caching sections
    with just the holes plugged, completely ignoring
    <http://ftp.digital.com/%7emogul/cachedraft.txt> and the
    discussions about caching of POSTs in this subgroup.

I would applaud that, too.  (Even the part about POSTs; let's
postpone that and content-negotiation until we have a better idea
of the more basic issues.)

    I probably won't have the time to make such an edited version
    myself, but I promise to help in flaming anyone who objects to such
    an edited 1.1 version on the grounds that it does not start from
    first principles, or does not include an explicit correctness
    model.

Flaming isn't going to get us anywhere.  If such a document does not
provide a rationale (which need not include "first principles" or an
explicit model) that is sufficiently detailed to convince the people
who don't currently agree with it, then it will not serve much of a
purpose in getting to consensus.

In other words, for those of you who disagree with me: try to change
my mind by making convincing arguments, not by flaming at me.

-Jeff

Received on Monday, 8 January 1996 22:45:39 UTC