ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-00

2002-05-21 12:33:36
see inline,

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK-lists(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:21 PM
To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-00

SNIP


The objective here is to allow a qualified administrator to 
trace what 
happended to the data when the end user gets errors.

In which case, I don't think that's an adequate level of tracing 
capability.  That is, I don't think it fully addresses the 
spirit of the 
IAB requirements.

I refer you to the example I mentioned, of a problem with an ISP's 
transparent caching.  I don't think it's acceptable that only 
the ISP's 
administrator can find out what happened, because in practice 
the ISP won't 
bother and will spin some lie about it being (say) a browser problem.

I think it's crucial to put diagnostic capability in the hands of the 
endpoint on whose behalf (authority) the service is being 
performed.  (Even 
if the endpoint isn't given any choice about having the service.)

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK(_at_)NineByNine(_dot_)org>



This is why header extensions may be needed. simply keeping a log will
suffer from the same problems that u mention plus it does not scale.

abbie