- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 15:26:55 +0100 (MET)
- To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
David W. Morris: > > If the negotiation group >can identify how to specify and what to negotiate then the join the >caching/proxy discussion to make sure we end up with a cohesive mechanism >which covers all issues. I agree, doing it this way is the best solution. Of course, this implies that the caching/proxy group stops discussing the caching of negotiated responses for some time. While the content negotiation subgroup is working out the negotiation mechanism, the caching/proxy subgroup can work on the caching model for non-negotiated responses. There are still plenty of things to discuss even if negotiation is presumed absent. According to the current 1.1 draft (Section 12, second paragraph), a response is non-negotiated if it does not have an URI header listing the available variants. I doubt that the content negotiation subgroup will propose a change of this rule. >Dave Morris Koen.
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 06:30:31 UTC