At first blush, it would seem that the I-D you describe would find a happy home
(and more germane expertise) in the http WG than it might in our WG. If the
draft dealt specifically with http compliance of proxies and caches, then WREC
would probably be the right place. The other alternative, of course, is an
individual submission. If you haven"t seen our documentation of common
practice and vendor implementations, please check them out at <www.wrec.org>.
Bill
(Break Seat) WREC Chair
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Talking about cache and replication, it would be nice also to have more
> > and more server admins doing "the right thing" about Cache-Control
> > headers, it would avoid dirty hacks to see if a resource can be cached or
> > not...
>
> OK, this is getting even *more* off-topic (sorry!), but I've been working on
> a study of web server capabilities for a little while, and it may be of
> interest in this regard. It does things from the other end; instead of doing
> trace analysis, etc, it breaks down popular servers into types of _content
> generators_ that they use, and tests them for protocol compliance.
>
> It's still quite rough, and not the most rigerous study you'll see, but have
> a look at:
> http://www.mnot.net/papers/capabilities.html
> (and I apologise in advance for the PDF - I know the type is really small!)
>
> Where is this leading? I'm starting to put together an (even more embryonic)
> I-D that deliniates server-side roles in regard to responsibility for HTTP
> compliance. The argument is that people aren't just using static files to
> manage content any more, and the protocol will hit a wall if it isn't
> accounted for in servers.
>
> Would this be wrec's area, http-wg's, or somewhere else? Any interest out
> there?
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> Melbourne, Australia
> http://www.mnot.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST