W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1999

Caching input - known problems

From: John Dilley <jad@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:19:45 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199906082142.OAA02759@granite.hpl.hp.com>
To: isp-caching@isp-caching.com, surrogates@equinix.com
Cc: wrec@cs.utk.edu
Hi,
	I am working in the IETF Web Replication and Caching working
group to create a report describing the current Known Problems with
proxy and cache technologies.  The purpose is to document the current
state of technology and understand where further work needs to be
applied.  This is a companion to the caching research issues document
that Joe Touch is editing.

	The Known Problems draft is not something I am writing; I have
volunteered to edit the document.  I do not believe any one person can
(or indeed, should) be responsible for describing all known problems
with web proxying, caching and replication.  Instead, this must be a
collaborative process within the Internet community, drawing upon the
experience of researchers and especially practitioners in the field.
The I-D will acknowledge each contributor (unless he or she wishes to
remain anonymous).

	I am sending this letter to solicit your input.  I have created
a problem template (based upon the TCP-IMPL and cache research issues
templates) to help frame the known problems.  If you can please use the
template to describe the issues; if not, it is still more important to
get the issues documented than to have them correctly formatted.  Let me
know if you feel the template needs to be improved, too.

	Please take a look at the template included below and try to
send me your input by Friday 9th July.  I will summarize the input I
have received by that date at the IETF WREC working group meeting the
following week.  The WREC working group will distribute meeting minutes
to the wrec@cs.utk.edu mailing list.

	Remember, this activity cannot be successful without input from
the community.  Lack of input implies there are no perceived problems.
If you feel otherwise, speak up so we can work towards resolving them.
Thank you!

			     --       jad       --

	John Dilley <jad@hpl.hp.com>
	Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
	1501 Page Mill Road MS 1U-17
	Palo Alto, CA  94304  // USA


	Known Problems Working Draft -- on the web:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Dilley/caching/draft-wrec-known-prob-00.html


	Text-only Template -- 

Name
     A short, descriptive name.
Classification
     Please choose a standard category if possible (see list above).
Description
     A succinct definition of the problem.
Significance (High, Medium, Low)
     High Medium Low. Supplimental information
Implications
     Why the problem is viewed as a problem.
Indications
     How to detect the presence of the problem.
Solution(s)
     Solutions that permanently fix the problem, if such are known.
Workaround
     Practical workaround if no solution is available or usable.
Contact
     email@host.org.domain (Your Name) or Anonymous

================================================================

	Template Instructions

Name
     A short, descriptive name (3-5 words) name associated with the problem.
     In this memo, the name is used as a subsection heading.
Classification
     Problems are grouped into categories of similar problems for ease of
     reading of this memo. Choose the category that best describes the
     problem. Suggested categories are as follows:
        o Specification: the spec is ambiguous, incomplete, or incorrect
        o Implementation: the implementation of the specification is
          incorrect
          ------------------------------------------------------------------
        o Performance: perceived latency or server demand exceed reasonable
          bounds
        o Administration: care and feeding of caches is or causes a problem
        o Network: impact on local, global networks from cache behavior
        o Security: privacy, authentication concerns
     This is the first draft of this memo. The classification structure is
     in revision. In the published drafts of the memo the classification
     structure should be fixed but may be revised from time to time.
Description
     A definition of the problem, succinct but including necessary
     background information.
Significance (High, Medium, Low)
     May include a brief summary of the environments for which the problem
     is significant.
Implications
     Why the problem is viewed as a problem. What inappropriate behavior
     results from it? This section should substantiate the magnitude of any
     problem indicated with High significance.
Indications
     How to detect the presence of the problem. This may include references
     to one or more substantiating documents that demonstrate the problem.
     This should include the network configuration that led to the problem
     such that it can be reproduced. Problems that are irreproduceable will
     not appear in this memo.
Solution(s)
     Solutions that permanently fix the problem, if such are known. For
     example, what version of the software does not exhibit the problem?
     Indicate if the solution is accepted by the community, one of several
     solutions pending agreement, or open possibly with experimental
     solutions.
Workaround
     Practical workaround if no solution is available or usable. The
     workaround should have sufficient detail for someone experiencing the
     problem to get around it.
Contact
     Contact name and email address of the person who supplied the
     information for this section. If you would prefer to remain anonymous
     the editor's name will appear here instead, but we believe in credit
     where credit is due.
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 1999 11:29:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:31 EDT