- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 03:45:50 -0800 (PST)
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Koen Holtman wrote: > Jeffrey Mogul: > >As we wrote, we have strong evidence that certain large customers are > >eager to deploy this extension. > > So who are these customers? Proxy cache vendors? Proxy cache > operators? Eagerness in origin server vendors/operators alone would > not necessarily convince me that this protocol extension will be > deployed. All of the above. This statement is backed up by continuous overwhealming demand for this feature from lots of Netscape Proxy customers. The need obviously originates from origin server operators, as they need their true statistics for billing based on ad exposure etc. I think most people would agree that they are entitled to that information. Some content providers (1) pressure online service providers and other proxy operators to give them their statistics. Others (most) simply (2) disable caching intentionally. (1) forces some large online service providers to run an up-to-date check for every file in their cache for every access, which increases latencies and wastes resources on their already otherwise busy servers, somewhat defeating the benefits that they are trying to gain by running proxy. (2) defeats the whole caching idea. Netscape, in all these roles (Proxy cache vendor, origin server vendor, and a content provider), is eager to see this issue reach consensus, so we can support it in our software. In my opinion this is one of the hottest items that the Working Group should solve in the immediate future. It has been deferred far too long already. Cheers, -- Ari Luotonen * * * Opinions my own, not Netscape's * * * Netscape Communications Corp. ari@netscape.com 501 East Middlefield Road http://home.netscape.com/people/ari/ Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Netscape Proxy Server Development
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 1996 04:02:18 UTC