- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@neon.mcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 12:21:18 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> > It's actually better to ignore the IMS header and have the cleint cancel > > if the date doesn't match. > > IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT BETTER TO DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! My words exactly since a boldface font is not available. Servers are already facing problems with TCP kernel bugs, and intentionally dropping connections from the client side would only make things worse. > The point is to save network traffic, NOT make life slightly easier > on server implementors. Supporting IMS is TRIVIAL and has already been > done on all major servers -- not supporting it is reprehensible and > deserving of public abuse. Yes; even proxies do it (at least both that I've written), and it was doable even then, although slightly more complex (with all the combinations of incoming and outbound requests). But the benefits far outweigh the complexity. Cheers, -- Ari Luotonen http://home.mcom.com/people/ari/ Netscape Communications Corp. 650 Castro Street, Suite 500 Mountain View, CA 94041, USA
Received on Friday, 2 December 1994 12:22:20 UTC