Re: Comments on draft-ietf-http-negotiation-00.txt

Paul Sutton:
>I must admin I would prefer it if Alternates is defined in the tcn draft
>as valid for any response where the server has multiple representations of
>the resource (whether or not a tcn rvsa algorithm was used). 
>I would also like to be able to respond with 300 Multiple Choices and
>ad-hoc responses after the server has applied _any_ algorithm

OK, I'll take that into account in my edits.

>Perhaps (and I haven't thought this through) the variant-validator should
>have it's own header rather than being stuck onto the end of the ETag,

It has to be in the Etag, unfortunately, to ensure consistency of plain 1.1

I'll probaby end up creating an extra header like:

 TCN: choice, proxy-rvsa="1.0"



Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 14:00:40 UTC