Hi,
see inline
Markus Hofmann wrote:
Arumugam,
> There is an advantage in notifying the content provider when the
> data is modified by opes device. The provider will come to know
> which lang. the content is transformed the most. So that the
> provider could keep a copy of the content in the same language.
> Thus he could contribute on avoiding that many opes
> transformations.
While there are clearly advantages in notifying the content provider
about certain services being performed, there are also services the
content provider does not really need to be notified about.
Furthermore, default notification to content providers raises privacy
issues - I might not want to let every content provider know what
exact services I requested...
Yes. Default notification to content provider could be avoided
considering the
privacy issues. Instead of sending notification to content provider on
every
transformation, the cumulative report of the transformations may be send
to the
content provider. Especially in language translation service ,this will
help on
getting the advantage mentioned in my previous mail.
Notification is one thing, authorization another. Just as with
notification, there are services for which it would make sense to
require authorization from both endpoints (i.e. consumer and
provider), but there are also services for which we cannot require
authorization from the provider. A stupid simple example is logging,
or a charging service - why would a consumer need the consesus of a
content provider to use a logging service? On the other hand, of
course, legal issues might require provider authorization for certain
services (e.g. content transformation). But maybe such authorization
will happen in form of SLAs?
When the content provider wants to have authorization for few services,
that has to be honoured. The SLAs could be used for this purpose.
I would like to mention one of the service given in the ICAP draft.
The ICAP protocol supports the advertisement insertion service. This
service replaces the original ad with local ad. Definitely , without
the approval of the content provider, this service could not be offered.
SLAs could be used for this purpose.
In general... In Section 2.2.2 of the scenarios draft, we talk about
"Services *not* intending to modify responses". Are these the services
that do *not* require authorization from content providers, while
"Services intending to modify responses" (as described in Section
2.2.1) would require such authorization? And what about the services
operating on requests?
Sometimes it would make sense to provide a service to requests also.
An example could be given from the ICAP protocol.
Using ICAP ,we can provide a decompression service. The OS would keep
the content
in the compressed format. When the user makes a request to the original
data,
the ICAP server will convert this request to a request for compressed
data.
On receiving the compressed data, the ICAP server will decompress it and
sends
the data in the original format to the end-user thro' the ICAP client.
This service helps on saving the network bandwidth.
In this service both request and response undergoes some modification.
This may be considered as a service where request also needs
modification
PS: I would like to know the view of the ICAP team on adding the
decompression
service to the current ICAP draft
Thanks
Arumugam
--
Want to know CDN?
http://cdn.hcltech.com