W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: New document on "Simple hit-metering for HTTP"

From: <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 96 17:17:52 -0400
Message-Id: <9608162117.AA05737@etna.ai.mit.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: hallam@ai.mit.edu
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1383

With the latest suggested addition to the "simple" hit metering
draft it has become as complex as my original proposal. The
only difference being that in my proxy notification draft I 
was also considering a possible generalisation of the
mechanism to cover other types of notification such as updates.

Do people really believe that using the HEAD (or whatever) method
to communicate hit counts is really much simpler than the server
periodically requesting log files? I originally started with a 
scheme very close to the "simple" proposal. I had to expand the
scheme after talking to people from Nielssen, Gallup and co.

In the notification draft defered loading of logfiles was handled
via a 3 byte, uuencoded string of a 24 bit mask corresponding
to prefered download periods (in GMT).

Note that on the compresssion side log file exchange is a lot 
better than "simple" hit count. Each logfile entry is a lot more 
compact than a simulated hit.

Received on Friday, 16 August 1996 14:17:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC