- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:53:55 -0800
- To: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Benjamin Franz' <snowhare@netimages.com>
>---------- >From: Benjamin Franz[SMTP:snowhare@netimages.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 1996 5:22 AM >To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com >Subject: Re: Hit-metering: to Proposed Standard? > > >This also does not begin to address the questions of privacy and security >and their impact on the usage of hit-metering.. Many corporate proxies >would more than reluctant to be sending out information about their >internal usages to anyone who asked - they would be actively opposed to >it. If I ran a corporate cache, I'd want to use hit-metering to whatever origin sites supported it. Today, those sites cost me one network round trip for every GET done to fetch a "cache-busted" page from the sites, and I give away (via Referer, etc.) information with each request. With hit-metering, origin sites that support it could cut the round trips by any factor they chose, while still getting hit-count information; and the corporation would be giving away less information about the requests. I.e., win-win. > >In my view, the hit-metering proposal seems to request large amounts of >work for proxies at nearly no benefit - to anyone. Benefits to end users -- faster response time Benefits to cache owners -- less network bandwidth needed Benefit to origin sites -- customer gets page faster, is more pleased with site Paul
Received on Thursday, 21 November 1996 17:02:06 UTC