- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:25:15 -0400
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1 On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:54:19AM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > > >In this situation, I would prefer changing the default to keep > >unprocessed header entries, and deferring the relaying into > >modules where I think it really belongs; but I see how this > >might be perceived as a big change. > > I think there are scenarios that call for both ignored header blocks to > be removed and for them to be forwarded. An example of the former is > some hop-by-hop oriented feature, and an example of the latter is some > feature that isn't hop-by-hop specific. > > IMO, it is not really a question of whether changing the default is a > big change or not but rather that it doesn't address both cases. For > example, having ignored header blocks be preserved would not allow me to > deploy an optional hop-by-hop compression algorithm. > > A nice thing about the "relay" role proposal is that I get both > capabilities. This means that I can deploy an optional hop-by-hop > "compression" header block which is removed if ignored AND a "trace" > header block which is not removed if ignored. > > Henrik -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 16:25:00 UTC