[Top] [All Lists]

Re: User Profile Information Protocol

2001-03-05 17:31:11
Hi Reinaldo. I had read this and the companion draft a while back. It's probably a good time for me to float my comments. :)

I noticed you posted to multiple lists, and indeed, my first comment is that I'm not really sure where this belongs in the IETF landscape. It has a CDI flavor because it mentions surrogates and these surrogates are likely to be in a different administrative domain from the access device that sends the information about user profiles. However, since the "different administrative domains" isn't a requirement, it could also be a WEBI thing. Also, since these profiles are largely going to determine the nature of personalized services performed by the surrogates, that makes me think OPES.

My main technical question is regarding scalability. Imagine today's CDN landscape where CDNs have thousands of surrogates. Does each surrogate need to know about the profiles of all access users everywhere? Of course, we'd think it logical that they only need to know about the profiles of users that are "close" to those surrogates, but part of the benefit of CDNs in handling "flash crowds" and such is that a far-away surrogate may be chosen in lieu of a nearby, congested one. Our CDI model may imply that the profiles would be handed off to one "gateway" of each CDN and the CDN would distribute it to surrogates as necessary. However, I don't think it's fair to say "you handle it internally" to the CDNs if we know up front that it's a problem that's difficult/impossible to scale (each CDN conceivably having millions of profiles on every surrogate).

Nevertheless, I do agree that thinking in this area is necessary. I've often been skeptical of the applicability of ICAP/OPES in pure-CDN cases because CDNs do not "own" the user session. If I am an ISP and I provide the DSL/cable/dial "pipe", I'm going to do whatever is locally necessary to identify each user so I can bill them, and that same identification gives me the ability to affect the session: virus checking, filtering, ad targeting, etc. In the case of a surrogate where the universal lingo of identification is a cookie (right?), a lot of services simply don't seem possible. A richer type of universal lingo does seem like a missing puzzle piece.


At 01:10 AM 3/2/01 -0800, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
Hi Folks,

I welcome comments on the following draft.




title: User Profile Information Protocol

      We present here a protocol in which edge network equipments, also
    known as IP Services devices, Broadband RASes, Edge Routers and
    so forth, can inform surrogates or traffic interception devices
    extended information about the user, such as geographic location,
    QoS policy, fully qualified login (name(_at_)domain(_dot_)name) and start 
    stop times (or its equivalent for non-session based users).
    The User Profile Information Protocol, herein called UPIF, allows
    services providers, access providers and content delivery
    networks to provide personalized or differentiated treatment to each
    user individually, and also to enhance accounting considerably.

author: Reinaldo Penno, Andre Gustavo de   Albuquerque

date: 02/08/2001

id: draft-penno-cdnp-nacct-userid-02.txt

Phil Rzewski - Senior Architect - Inktomi Corporation
650-653-2487 (office) - 650-303-3790 (cell) - 650-653-1848 (fax)

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