- From: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:06:53 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Jim Gettys writes: > I've been watching the situation on content negotiation now for 18 months. > > I believe the fundamental disconnect this working group has on the > topic is that there is no agreement on what the actual requirements > are; Requirements often must evolve as the problem is further understood by way of working through possible solutions. So people should not necessarily feel guilty about not having come up with the definitive requirements up front. But it does seem time to address the requirements for content negotiation at a deeper level of specificity. ... > For example, I have a (personal) belief that only the client can > have enough information to make an informed choice, and that having > a proxy try to short circuit the first round trip will ultimately be futile. ... > But take this as just one opinion: others feel that avoiding a round > trip to the first proxy is benficial (I do to; I just don't think you can > make it work well enough to be useful, and that the cost is worth paying). Perhaps one compromise requirement that everyone can agree on is that round trips should be avoided, but not necessarily eliminated, without increasing the size of requests or responses "too much". This is rather general, but I believe still useful as a guideline. A more specific, but arbitrary, goal of 80% round-trip avoidance seems like a nice number.:-) This requirement can be statically achieved by doing statistical studies of the most likely desired capabilities of servers and clients. But these capabilities will evolve over time, so the content negotiation mechanism, or the way in which it is used, must evolve in parallel so as to avoid round trips. One of the problems we are bound to have is that the nature of negotiation makes it is difficult for there to be very many absolutes. The reason we need negotiation in the first place is that we have a disconnect between two (or more) parties who wish to communicate about something. The process of negotiation must always be balanced against the efficiency of the request process and the precision of the results. -- Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu) National Center for Supercomputing Applications http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 1997 11:11:52 UTC