Re: Proposed changes to 8xx

I don't know if it's appropriate to set requirements levels in the end
specification in the context of the requirements document. Editors?

That issue aside, all implementations need to be aware of intermediaries; if
they're not able to identify message parts (e.g., headers) that aren't
intended for them, it will be difficult/impossible to interpose an
intermediary in the message stream (depending on the nature of the
intermediary's operations).

For example, if a server inserts caching instructions aimed at a particular
intermediary, and the client behind the intermediary doesn't understand that
those instructions are not applicable to it, it will generate an error.

This (being able to identify the recipient of particular elements) is a
small price to pay for the flexibility, etc. that intermediaries give us,
IMHO.



On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:53:02PM +0100, MOREAU Jean-Jacques wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> > Comments welcome. I've tried to incorporate ballot feedback; if you still
> > have issues w/ intermediaries, please bring them to the group ASAP.
> 
> Mark, I've been reading this whole section as meaning intermediaries are
> optional, i.e. some XP requests will contain information destined at
> intermediairies, others will not; but I don't think this has been made very
> explicit so far.
> 
> Shouldn't we clarify the surrounding text, and/or add a further requirement?
> (unless we think all XP implementations should definitely support
> intermediaries)
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)

Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 14:47:27 UTC