Keep Alives/Session Extension

!!!! This is not about Session-IDs.  It's about persistant connections.

Is the flipping from "Connection:" to "Session:" in the Alex Hopman session
extension draft intentional?  Even from a third reading, it doesn't seem so.
However, this could be a potentially beneficial typo.  I would like to see
BOTH a Connection: header and a Session: header, the first indicating that
only the connection is persistent, the second indicating that not only is
the connection persistent, but various headers including the Accept: and
WWW-Authenticate: are persistent/saved as well.

Implementation of the acceptance array storing is annoying at best, because
it brings information that naturally pertains to 'request objects' up to a
'connection object' level, and could get really ugly.  The benefits are
probably negligible relative to the TCP overhead, certainly for Accept:
headers, and maybe even for WWW-Authenticate: computations.  Anyway, having
both Connection: and Session: and would greatly speed up wide-spread
implementation (of the former at least), which is what we all want, right?

PS: Oh, and if this WAS an intentional change of terms, indicating exactly
what I described above, please help me remove my foot from my mouth.

PSS: This goes without saying, but we don't have to have Connection: and
Session:.  There could be "Connection: maintain" and "Connection: maintain,
accept", "Connection: maintain, authenticate", etc...  Or any other of a
variety of syntaxes yielding the behavior I described in paragraph 1.
-----
Dan DuBois, Software Animal                          ddubois@spyglass.com
(708) 505-1010 x532                     http://www.spyglass.com/~ddubois/

Received on Monday, 7 August 1995 17:48:53 UTC