View: Browse HTML     Browse Raw Text
From: touch@ISI.EDU
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:11:48 -0800
To: jg@pa.dec.com, fielding@ics.uci.edu
Cc: touch@ISI.EDU, lsam@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Updated issues list...
FYI, 

I noticed that the final version of the RFC had
changed the wording of the section on persistent
connections, notably regarding our work at ISI
(reference 27).

The original document referenced other work that
endorsed the use of persistence. Ours does NOT.
Earlier wording made that distinction clear.

The current RFC wording lists only the advantages
of persistence, none of the disadvantages. Our document
specifically addresses these, and the other ways
to achieve the advantages without using persistence.

I'm not sure in what version of the drafts this
change occurred, but I would be very interested
in contributing to the understanding and appreciation
of the detrimental effects of persistence.

Please let me know if there is anything I can 
do regarding future documents that can acheive
this goal. (should I raise this to the group??)

Thanks

Joe

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu		    http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM       http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof.                http://www.isi.edu/lsam/