- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:56:42 PDT
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, ietf-fax@imc.org
> But I believe that the distinction between 'online' messaging > (like HTTP) and s/f messaging is more one of degree than fundamental > difference, and mechanisms good for one may be applicable to the other. I'm warming up to the idea of using HTTP-like caching for caching recipient capabilities. A response can identify the request which caused it to be generated, either by directly including it (for small requests, like GET or CAPS) or by reference (e.g., by link or message-ID). A response must contain the date of the response, and should also contain a time when the response is likely to become stale. Recipient capabilities/preferences/characteristics are treated as if they are a response to a request for the same. So you can use HTTP-like caching for saving recipient capabilities. If the information has expired, you can ask for it again, or you can, if you must, use stale data, but report that the data is stale. The sender of a fax confronted with a known-stale signal of recipient capabilities can choose to send any of a number of items: alternatives, least common denominator, ask for capabilities again, or use the stale information and hope for the best. Larry response to a request -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Friday, 20 June 1997 16:04:05 UTC