Re: Looking for comments on the HTTP Extension draft

	Thanks for your reply to my comments; I believe, however, that
some inexactness on my part may have led you astray, as we still seem
to be talking at cross-purposes on some issues.  I will endeavor below
to clarify those areas.
	Before going into the details, however, I want to make clear
that I was not proposing that the HTTP *minor* version number be
revved, but its *major* version number.  This document seems to me to
propose a framework that will encompass changes sufficiently great to
warrant that change--the landscape of the web will be changed
completely if this is adopted, and that calls to me for some pretty
clear signposts.  
	I will repeat that I would not see the need for the rev if the
document did not allow responses to contain extensions based on "a
priori" knowledge.  Without that "a priori" extension, HEAD, OPTIONS,
or the other methods you describe would suffice.  Without a very clear
specification of very specific cases where those "a priori" extensions
are allowed, they will be used in many, many cases that we cannot now
foresee.  That means a big, big flag needs to be raised.

> Furthermore, there is no reason why an application MUST read the
> declaration first - the ns prefixed header fields are just unknown
> extension header fields until the extension declaration has been
> interpreted. This kind of "two-pass" header field parsing is not new to
> HTTP - the same is the case for the connection header field and the
> cache-control header field, for example.

I did not say it must *read* the declaration first; I said it must
*process* it first.  Whether that is a one pass or a two pass header
field parsing makes no difference to the requirement.  As written, if
a Man: or an Opt: header exists, it must be processed with its
namespace headers first, as the meanings of the other headers may
change based on the extensions.

This is, in fact, a point I don't feel I am making well, and I'd like
Larry to speak to it if he can.  During the CONNEG meetings in Orlando,
he expressed very well the principle that the meaning of a feature must
not depend semantically on the values of *other* features (so "Warm" must
mean the same thing whether we are talking about beer or the weather).  
This has a lot of implications for feature design (You don't use "Warm",
you use "33c").  Many of the same issues apply even more strongly for 
extensions to HTTP, and I don't see them addressed in the draft. 

>   3.  If 2) did not result in a 510 (Not Extended) status code, then
>       strip the "M-" prefix from the method name and process the
>       remainder of the request according to the semantics of the
>       extensions and of the existing HTTP/1.1 method name as defined in
>       [5].

Again, I don't seem to be getting my point across here.  The example I
gave was possibly too local.  I was trying to imply that the apparent
method for extending a method might seem to imply constraints which
aren't there.  In the M-GET example, you may have the base semantics
of GET, but you also have the possibility of secondary effects (like
the M-GET popping a stack and causing a new value to be present at the
URL) which substantially change the original semantics and cause
previously expected characteristics of GET (like idempotence) to
change.  The implication of this is that anyone examining a method for
security reasons (like a firewall administrator) cannot rely on the
method to the right of the M- for any real expectations of the
method's semantics.

> I can think of plenty of examples where this is not the case - for
> example published papers, released software packages etc. However, you
> are right that this is an issue and extension designers have to be
> careful (as should everybody else) when selecting a spot in the URI name
> space. This is also the reason for the careful wording in [2] section 
> 8:
> <paraindent><param>left</param>It is strongly recommended that the
> integrity and persistence of the extension identifier be maintained and
> kept unquestioned throughout the lifetime of the extension. Care should
> be taken not to distribute conflicting specifications that reference the
> same name. Even when an extension specification is made available at the
> address of the URI, care must be taken that the specification made
> available at that address does not change over time. One agent may
> associate the identifier with the old semantics, and another might
> associate it with the new semantics.
> </paraindent>

The fact that people get identifiers right in other contexts doesn't
really change the fact that this a major change to how URLs are used
in the current web context.  Given that current context, I am afraid I
find "strongly recommended" to be weakly worded.  It's not even a
SHOULD requirement, and I believe that it ought to be the most
strongly worded MUST we can design.  Without that strong requirement,
interoperability is based on the good will of the market players, some
of whom will have strong disincentives to admit some kinds of changes.

> >4) The content negotiation implied by the document is also not
> >workable within the current CONNEG framework, because the set
> >intersection model CONNEG uses presumes that the resource is intended
> >for a single purpose; it has no provision for a resource that is a
> >token, a description, and machine-usable code.  In the current
> >framework, a device selects among multiple values in a set
> >intersection by q-value, not purpose.  It can't really select "one for
> >this and one for that" in the same operation.
> Unless this is different from HTTP then the q values describe the value
> on the axis and not the dimension of the axis. q values can be applied to
> any dimension be it type or some other property. In fact, the negotiation
> hinted at here only spans the media type.
> As metadata is moving on the Web and the ways of describing capabilities
> get more powerful, so is content negotiation likely to get more powerful.
> The extension framework doesn't depend on any particular content
> negotiation mechanism (including no mechanism at all) and can actually be
> used to introduce improved content negotiation schemes as they evolve.

Your first point is exactly what I am trying to get across: q values
describe the value on the axis and not *which* axis is being given the
value.  For a content negotiation mechanism to handle the problem you
propose, it would have to be able to designate the axis and the value.
I am not aware of any content negotiation mechanism, current or
proposed, that can handle that at the level of complexity your
document implies.  The correct operation of content negotiation for a
single-URI resource which potentially has everything from
machine-executable code to multi-lingual, multi-character set
descriptions is not an easy problem.  If you must imply that you want
it, please be very sure that you describe it as an unsolved problem
requiring further work.

To be brutally honest, I believe that those who ought to be giving this
framework the very careful review it deserves are simply too tired to
go over it with the fine-toothed comb it needs.  We must be careful
to get that review and those problems worked at before it is released,
though, as the work required to fix this post facto would be enormous.

Thanks again for all your continuing work on it,
				best regards,
					Ted Hardie

Received on Monday, 28 December 1998 12:49:59 UTC