Re: Connection Header

  > From research!cuckoo.hpl.hp.com!http-wg-request  Sun Dec 18 11:00:08 1994
  > Received: from research (research.att.com) by allegra.tempo.att.com; id AA29983; Sun, 18 Dec 94 11:00:06 EST
  > Received: by research.att.com; Sun Dec 18 10:59 EST 1994
  > Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Sun, 18 Dec 1994 15:53:38 GMT
  > Received: from http-wg (list exploder) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
  > 	(1.37.109.8/15.6+ISC) id AA03566; Sun, 18 Dec 1994 15:55:14 GMT
john@math.nwu.edu (John Franks) said on Sun, 18 Dec 1994 09:55:02 -0600 (CST):
  [...]
  > The criticism of MGET that it is not as general as keep-open is true,
  > but I think there is serious danger of performance degradation if that
  > generality is used.  More likely unless those concerns can be met keep-open
  > would not be widely implemented.  
  > 
  > I would assume that an MGET addition to the protocol would be accompanied
  > by a parallel MHEAD method.  It would still not be possible to mix 
  > GETs and POSTs or even do multiple POSTs. I don't see any pressing demand
  > for these, but perhaps I am just not aware of it.
  [...]

A SESSION method is preferable to a proliferation of M* methods.
SESSION is useful in contexts that are important for future uses of
WWW.  Specifically, SESSION makes security and payment enhancements to
HTTP more efficient.

Dave Kristol

Received on Sunday, 18 December 1994 15:16:41 UTC