Subject: Re: [lemonade] CONVERT - Clients Do Not Know

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:01:49 +0100

Hi Eric,
I will use your message to comment on emerging WG consensus as I see it.

Eric Burger wrote:

>Said another way, would it be correct to assert conversion was for display
>size, audio/video quality, or object format, and NOT for transmission
>optimization?
>
I am mostly agreeing with this assertion, but as previously discussed in 
this thread: I think the client can also request "return me the image 
which is less then 100Kb".

>I am leaning towards Lyndon's position: since there is no real use case for
>SIZE as an estimator, let us let the server only offer it to the client when
>it knows the exact value, after conversion.
>  
>
I think I hear the consensus for using the exact sizes. Considering that 
some people still see benefits in downloading a converted bodypart in 
chunks, the converted size might need to be known before the request for 
converted bodypart is fetched.

So I think what I have in the document already satisfies the 
requirements. I can add more text stressing out that good servers should 
cache a converted bodypart to make server performance tolerable for 
clients. I can also add some text that servers can protect themselves 
from abuse and can reply with NO response if the client requests too 
many nearly identical conversions.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:58:55 -0400

Work group folks:

Do we need stronger text, or can the text stand as is?  I think we're really
close to being done.

Do we need Chicago time on this document?  I hope we can finish it all
before the meeting (hint, hint).

--
- Eric

> many nearly identical conversions.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:58:35 +0100

Eric Burger wrote:

>Work group folks:
>
>Do we need stronger text, or can the text stand as is?
>
I need to review what I currently have in the document. I think some 
minor editorial additions/changes are needed.

>I think we're really close to being done.
>  
>
Yes.

Mark/Curtis have requested to change syntax to use a new command. I will 
be doing this over the upcoming weekend. I will submit a new revision 
before the submission deadline.

>before the meeting (hint, hint).
I might need 5 minutes to talk about new syntax. But I don't expect any 
discussions and I don't have any open issues.