Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ohto-ccpp-exchange-00

Graham Klyne wrote:
>Hi Koen,

Hi Graham,

>Did you see the proposal I made to not try and carry profile structuring 
>information as part of the protocol?

Yes, and that would work for me too.

  [Koen:]
>>Also, if you are serious about making Vary more useful, you should
>>also specify a 'preferred http-ext namespace number' (for example 50),
>>which all user agents should use, if possible, when extending the
>>request with a Profile http-ext header.  If user agents always
>>generate these numbers semi-randomly. then two xx-Profile: yyy headers
>>on two different requests but with the same yyy will seldom match
>>because they have a different xx number.
>
>Interesting point... isn't this something that might be addressed more 
>generally in HTTP extensions?  (I'm tempted to say that Vary: might be made 
>extension-aware, but that's too tall an order.)

Yes, other protocols using http-ext might also want to define a
preferred number for themselves, so this could be generalised.  The
http-ext RFC is published now though, and I don't expect to see
revisions to it appear in the near future, so the point is a bit
academic.

>
>#g
>

Koen.

Received on Monday, 12 June 2000 21:34:19 UTC