- From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 98 14:48:26 MDT
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Cc: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Yes, I was thinking of extending the namespace (ns) parameter to support this including only sending back the namespace ID because as you say, this is enough. It would also give explicit information about which extensions had been fulfilled in the case where the request contained a mix of mandatory and optional extensions. I'm not sure whether that would be mixing up two different mechanisms. I would use a single nonce to ensure that the communication path is free of ignorant caches and CGI scripts; i.e., if the client gets the correct nonce back in the response, then it's sure that everyone is playing by whatever rules are defined for the nonce Ack. Then I ran into thoughts about too much overhead of adding potentially several UUIDs to each request If you want to know which of several extensions were fulfilled, you could do this with a separate (and probably more compact) ID space. I.e., use a set of integers 0..N in a request with N extensions, and get back a subset of that set (or perhaps even a binary encoding of a bitmap). Since these extension-IDs don't have to also serve as integrity checks, they don't have to be very large. and not being able to see the result without parsing the whole message Well, life is sometimes hard. Buffering the response headers before acting upon the response seems like a small price to pay (e.g., there's no guarantee that Content-Type will come before the last header, so the client can't do much until it sees that, anyway). [102] would of course not work through 1.0 proxies. Hmm, now I don't know. Exactly my point. While sending and acking the nonce does add some header bytes, it seems (at least, after a few minutes' worth of thought) to "solve" the problem in the sense of getting correct answers. Then you can optimize; for example, maybe the client doesn't need to send a nonce on subsequent requests if the first one worked out. But if you can't guarantee correctness, you can't optimize. -Jeff
Received on Friday, 7 August 1998 17:48:05 UTC