W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1996

RE: Hit-metering: to Proposed Standard?

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:53:55 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-961120235355Z-24294@INET-01-IMC.microsoft.com>
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>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1929

>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

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

Received on Thursday, 21 November 1996 17:02:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC