Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:15:05 -0400

On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
> ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one?  There isn't an RFC 2822
> registration process that I am aware of.

IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the introduction of an 
new one?  Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?'

I hope I am not belaboring the point but at this stage if we focus more on the 
research aspect of the problems the set of solutions that are viable should/may 
become more apparent.  So instead of attempting to prove the solution perhaps 
at this stage it is better to 'test' the approach to a solution in theory and 
provide provable research conclusions that support the goals of the approach. 
 Just a thought.

-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:56:48 -0400

At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote:

>[..]

Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard 
gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard is approved 
then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the 
HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip 
encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5).

Yakov

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Shafranovich / <[email-masked]>
SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on
the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:09:20 -0400

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard is 
> approved then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is 
> similar to the HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to 
> indicate gzip encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5).

I disagree. When you write the internet-draft, ONLY specify the CRI 
header. X- headers should only be used for doing experiments before you 
write the internet-draft. As soon as you enter the ietf-space, stick to 
the real name. x-gzip was specified to handle backward compatibility 
because there was considerable history with its use prior to the RFCs 
being written. You don't have that problem here -- there is no history 
of previous uses of X-CRI that needs to be supported.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: "Eric Dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:25:44 -0400

> provide provable research conclusions that support the goals of

I agree.  In fact, we should have two CRI systems available shortly for
testing.  I've just been trying to figure out which headers we should
implement.