ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: ISTag in iCAP draft

2001-06-20 04:46:56

Having said that, I don't think this issue belongs to the
specification of the transport protocol, which should be kept as
simple as possible to do its job and no simpler.  Different
implementors may want to deal with the problem differently.  I would
be willing to include a subsection 8.x explaining this issue, but I
don't think we should mandate anything in the protocol per se.  That
should be left to the implementor's discretion.

I totally agree in this. These are all implementation details. But I think
that it could be ONE possible solution to implement more knowledge inside
the iCAP server. But this can only be achieved if the ISTag is sent with the
iCAP requests back to the server as a cookie. But in the specs ISTag is just
a response header.
What's about moving it to section 4.3.1 "Headers Common to Requests and
Response" and let client implementors decide whether to add it or not.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>