W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: Confusion about Age: accuracy vs. safety

From: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 18:58:12 +0500
Message-Id: <9609042258.AA07820@www18.w3.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1549
Roy T. Fielding writes:
 > > I can speak for myself here: as I am not as wise as you guys, and as I
 > > don't have much time for discussions, I did implement *exactly* (as
 > > faithfully as possible - see code below), Jeff's pseudo code.
 > Anselm, I believe that what you have implemented is just the calculation
 > of the Age upon receipt, right?  The question is: does the proxy code
 > add an Age header field (or to the value of an existing Age header)
 > when it forwards a message not from its own cache?
 > There is nothing wrong with the calculation of Age upon receipt.  The
 > problem would be if intermediaries added to the Age value (the age as
 > perceived by the outbound clients) when no aging occurs. If they do add
 > to the age, then Age becomes meaningless as a mechanism for ensuring a
 > lower bound in the presence of clock skew.

Oops, sorry for the confusion, you are right. I am getting tired these

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 1996 16:01:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC