ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Notification

2003-04-08 11:07:49

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

I tend to agree with you that the kind of "opposite-direction,
outside-of-message scheme" is quite tricky, and IMHO not very
practical. Scalability and also privacy are a big concern here.

Yes. I would also add "the level of detail that providers would want
to see in those notifications" as a problem. IMO, these concerns
together make any general-purpose notification scheme impractical. If
the group decides to proceed anyway, we should talk to Hit Metering
(RFC 2227) folks for an advice how to avoid their protocol fate.

Hit Metering for caching is exactly what Notifications are for OPES.
Hit Metering is dead, AFAIK.

Probably best if we check-in with our ADs and the IAB at some point,
but I'd first like to discuss this a little bit further and solicit
input on this very topic from other folks as well. So, please post
your comments on this one!

Just to summarize for the record: IMO, we should satisfy 3.1
consideration by saying that "always-on tracing assists content
providers" and giving a few specific examples. We should not go beyond
that and we should seek ADs and the IAB opinion ASAP.

In other words, we would be saying that the IAB choice of
"Notification" label should be interpreted as "Notification
assistance" (making notifications meaningful) and should not be
interpreted as "Notification protocol". We go by the actual
consideration wording, ignore the label, and consider any IAB
motivation text as informative (not normative).

Again, once we decide what to do, we should contact ADs/IAB ASAP.

Alex.

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