- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:35:18 PST
- To: http-caching@pa.dec.com
I sent this to Jeff, but I thought I'd send it out more widely, to at
least explain how I'm thinking about this:
We have two initial states already:
a) Current Practice
b) What Roy Wrote
To do anything at all different from one or the other of those, we
need a compelling argument of the form:
1) What's wrong now
2) What's the proposed fix
3) Convincing evidence that the proposed fix
- fixes the problem
- doesn't introduce any new problems
Jeff's document is basically (2) and some about of (3), but is very
weak on (1). What little there is of (1) seems to be intermixed with (2).
I don't think http-caching has agreement on (1), and so it makes it
hard to evaluate proposals (2). Insofar as What Roy Wrote is different
from current practice, it suffers from the same difficulty; since it
doesn't contain design rationale, it's hard to evaluate whether we
believe the problems it was attempting to solve were really problems
or whether the proposed new protocol elements solve the problem, etc.
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 1996 08:48:22 UTC