- From: Bob Wyman <bobwyman@medio.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 18:35:27 -0800
- To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>, "dmk@allegra.att.com" <dmk@allegra.att.com>, "http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
-- [ From: Bob Wyman * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > With the recent addition to the proposal that clients stay in the "have > state-info" state when there is no state-info in the server's (or cache's) > response, this means that caches need not "reflect" state-info either. Actually, "reflect" isn't the right word here. It's something more like "forward." I've been awfully tempted on many occaisions to make the same suggestion that you have, with much the same reasoning. However, there are at least two problems with the proposal: 1. HTTP V1.0 only says that the idempotent nature of GET and HEAD is "by convention" -- it doesn't really state this as a requirement. Should we write protocol that assumes the "convention" is being followed? 2. If you remove the requirement for forwarding of State-Info, you break the ability of servers to use State-Info for click tracking. This is, unfortunately, one of the applications that State-Info is supposed to support. If it wasn't for click tracking, I would whole-heartedly support your suggestion. bob wyman
Received on Thursday, 24 August 1995 18:46:21 UTC