On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:43:18 PDT, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I would prefer if it was clearer from the text that the definitions
>were copied while the "Note" sections weren't. It might just
>be indentation, e.g., indent this document's "note" sections
>*less* than the quoted text rather than more.
Like this?
:2. Terminology
:
: The following terminology provides definitions of common terms used
: within the IETF WREC working group documents. Base terms are taken,
: where possible, from [5][6] and are included here for reference.
: From these base terms we describe first- and second-order
: derivatives as well as terms that describe common structural
: language used within the community.
<snip>
: cache (as given in [6])
: A program's local store of response messages and the subsystem
: that controls its message storage, retrieval, and deletion. A
: cache stores cacheable responses in order to reduce the response
: time and network bandwidth consumption on future, equivalent
: requests. Any client or server may include a cache, though a
: cache cannot be used by a server that is acting as a tunnel.
:
: Note: The term "cache" used alone often is meant as "caching proxy".
With respect to identifying that the definitions are copied, does the
above clarification work, or would you (also) prefer something in the
intro text?
As for the notes, hope the above is OK - I can't make it any
different.
>Some of your basic terms and notes belong in the revision of RFC 2616 as
>it goes to "Standard"; you might consider submitting them as
>errata ( http://purl.org/NET/http-errata ).
OK, will do.
>> Note: There is widespread colloquial mis-use of the term "cache"
>> to mean "caching proxy".
>
>I think you can be less pejorative:
><<The term "cache" used alone often is meant as "caching proxy".>>
>but I don't know how widespread this is, actually. Personally, most documents
>I've seen are careful about this.
I think I've noticed the same in written documents (although I'm sure
I've seen "proxy cache" a lot), but I note that when speaking (at
least the people I talk to) the phrases "cache" and "proxy" are
substituted for "caching proxy".
>> 2.3 Second order derivatives
>>
>> The following terms further build on first order derivatives
>>
>> authoritative reference
>> The owner of data; content production system; possibly an origin
>> server; the overall master copy of the content, if any
>
>Why is this second-order? The definition is a bit unsatisfactory
>since "owner" and "data" aren't defined, nor is "content
>production system". I'm not sure what you mean.
"Server" and the more specific "origin server" are defined. I added
this term to try and hint at the system that maintained the overall
master copy of the content, for possible inclusion in the replication
side of things. It didn't seem that origin server correctly conveyed
the required semantics when considering replicas.
: origin server (as given in [6])
: The server on which a given resource resides or is to be created.
With many replicas, which could presumably appear to be the origin
server by the above definition, what wording can be used to describe
the system that hold the "master" copy. (I'm just an editor, if
someone has some better terms please submit them.)
>> content consumer
>> The user or system that initiates requests of an origin server
>> (which may in turn be handled by a proxy).
>
>I'm not sure how this is distinguished from "user agent" or
>"client". (Actually, the line between "user agent" and "client"
>isn't described very well in RFC 2616.)
On that second point I can see what you mean. To me a client is just
as defined. A user agent is an application used by an entity to
request and receive content. The content consumer is the entity that
makes a request of a user agent.
I've probably not made good enough examples. However, I felt that
"user" implied human too much, and I didn't want the inference that
the entity making requests was a human.
>> browser
>> A special instance of a user agent that acts as a content
>> presentation device for content consumers.
>
>My guess is that both of these should be present in the update to
>RFC 2616, and that we should more carefully distinguish between
>those constraints that apply to a 'user agent' and those that
>apply to a 'browser'. HTTP/1.1 makes some requirements on how
>the "user agent" interacts with the "user" in the case of
>a "browser" that is inappropriate for other kinds of clients,
>e.g.,
>
> ... user agents SHOULD present to the user the entity returned
> with the response, since that entity is likely to include human-
> readable information which will explain the unusual status.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST