- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:36:29 +0100 (MET)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding: > >>>I really don't care whether or not they are part of TCN -- what is important >>>is that TCN not screw-over other forms of negotiation (namely, agent-driven) >>>that also use the Alternates information, but without any need for >>>contortions due to transparency. >> >>Ah, so *that* is your problem. Well, I see Alternates as intimately >>connected to TCN, while the concept of a variant list is more general. In >>the TCN spec, the Alternates header acts as a flag to proxies that this >>response is transparently negotiated. If you want to use variant lists >>outside of TCN, you should put them in another header. > >Because it is unreasonable to expect implementations to send two >lists of Alternates when there are already concerns regarding performance >and bandwidth usage in only sending one list. That is not what I had in mind, I was thinking that the agent-driven algorithm would recognise both Alternates and the Alternates-but-no-TCN header. [...] >>If you think that the 1.1 spec reserves Alternates for all forms of >>agent-driven negotiation, and that TCN should use some other kind of flag if >>it needs one, then say so. > >I thought I already did, several times. Maybe, but not in a way I could understand. OK, I'll take the TCN specific parts out of Alternates and will define an additional header to carry these parts. I'll post the edits for review as soon as I finish them, which will probably be early next week. >....Roy Koen.
Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 13:47:22 UTC