Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-01.txt

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

The existence of the "User-Agent:" proves that someone wanted that 
there, so from backwards compatibility, the process flow I wrote with 
the two "CONNECT /000" happens before any "User-Agent:" field exists.

first-hand: the state does not exist.
second-hand: the state existed or exists.

One intent is for stateful transfers with the ReSTful paradigm (this is 
simpler). The HTTP is there in the hypermedia (the two "CONNECT /000" 
given) in stream mode by "Content-Type:" multi-parts. We found we can't 
do stateful transfers with SSL without consistent major 
reimplementation, over and over through the years. I proved earlier (the 
flow format) how S/MIME can help solve that (if my expression is seen as 
one template of stateful transfers).

I'm just one scientist with lots of results. Some are useful and some 
are useless, and we don't have ordinary time to explain them all. I 
think you found something useful (to solve this further) even if neither 
of us has stated such specifically.

On 05/31/2011 07:44 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
>
> You've lost me; there too many ideas in this paragraph for me to
> comprehend at once. I'm not proposing adding any information to the
> User-Agent header. From my point of view User-Agent is motly there for
> backwards compatibility and telling the world how esotoric software
> you use. There isn't any useful information therein.
>
>    


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant