- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:46:31 -0400
- To: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
- Cc: brian@organic.com (Brian Behlendorf), www-talk@www10.w3.org
In message <199507261138.NAA07954@wswiop05.win.tue.nl>, Koen Holtman writes: > > Session-id allows for a reliable and relatively straightforward > implementation of what I call a `statefull dialog' between user and > service, that is a dialog that extends beyond the submission of one > form. By allowing statefull dialogs, session-id will greatly increase > the potential of the web as a two-way communications medium. Let's be careful here: the proposed mechanisms can be split quite clearly among those where the information in the request _may_ affect the response, and those where it _may not_; that is, those mechanisms that interfere with caching, and those which do not. If your application requires a "stateful dialog" between client and server, clearly there are interactions with caching: the if a request for resource R is made first with dialog identifier X and subsequently with dialog identifier Y, a proxy must not satisfy the second request with a cached response from the first request. To my mind, any of the mechanisms for implementing "stateful dialogs" are authentication techniques. The dialog identifier, cookie, or (in some uses of the term) session ID works just like a user ID in an authentication mechanism. On the other hand, my Request-ID proposal had no caching interactions. Yikes!!! My most recent set of proposals vanished into the bitbucket! Before Brian and others throw in the towel, consider this revised set of proposals: I'm not risking email again. I'll stick it on the web: http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Protocols/demographics.html Dan
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 1995 11:49:27 UTC