- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:21:23 -0700
- To: Mike McCool <mlm@netscape.com>
- Cc: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>> [...] Digest can and should have been
>> implemented in HTTP/1.0 as the experiment that it was -- whether
>> or not it is stable only affects the allocation of limited resources.
>
> I disagree, because of the nature of "experimental" features. The
> particular case we're talking about (I believe) is the case where
> Digest was implemented, and pulled because the spec showed signs
> of destabilization. With the final release of the servers in
> question rapidly approaching, we decided it would be better to play
> it safe and remove support until the spec was stable than to keep
> the support in and saddle everyone with an experimental
> implementation for a long time. If a spec shows signs of
> instability, and a product is scheduled to ship a final release,
> it is not prudent to release an experimental feature in a release
> product. Haven't specs gotten bit by experimental features with
> large user bases before? Currently I'm thinking of the Host:
> header, which I believe was appending the port number in Navigator,
> and some discussion came up to remove the port number. Even if
> the spec did change, now experimental behavior has to be expected
> and dealt with because users will be sending it. We decided to be
> prudent and wait for the spec to calm down rather than etch
> experimental behavior into a final release. (Note that I can only
> speak for the server side.)
We don't disagree -- that is what I meant by experiment. I have no
problem with Netscape's decision not to include it in their released
products until there is a stable spec. However, I do hope that you
(and everyone else) have continued to experiment and thus that you
will be ready to release a completed implementation, based on the
now final draft, as soon as possible.
My disagreement was with Mr. Morris' suggestion that this is the
same as the "HTTP/1.1" labelling issue; it is not. Digest (as a draft)
is now just as stable for HTTP/1.0 as it is for HTTP/1.1.
I personally do not care whether Digest is a MUST or not -- people will
implement it because doing so results in a better product.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Thursday, 29 August 1996 16:31:13 UTC