Re: RFC: draft-brown-device-stock-ua-00.txt

On 15.11.2012 13:03, Ludin, Stephen wrote:
> I am not certain I understand the question, but I'll answer with 
> where the
> 'situational' part could come in.  The two simplest are:
> 1) Origin outputs device specific content and uses the intermediary 
> simply
> to accelerate and/or cache
> 2) Origin serve generic content and the intermediary performs the
> appropriate adaptation
> I the latter example, the origin dose not necessarily need to know 
> the
> device details and removing or changing the header may be 
> appropriate.  In
> the former the header is less important to the intermediary though 
> they
> still may need to for caching the content appropriately of so desired 
> by
> the origin.
> -stephen

Example (using the draft -00 definition):

   Device-Stock-UA: Chrome-Mobile/16.0

How does that determine what screen size is being viewed on:
  * 1-inch mobile
  * 5-inch mobile
  * 7-inch tablet
  * 10.2 inch tablet
  * 10.4 inch tablet
  * netbook
  * virtualized mobile device running in embeded 640x480 window frame
  * USB-enabled 1640x1280 monitor plugged into one of the above
  * ... the list goes on, and on...

How does it determine CPU capacity of the above?

How does it determine graphics capability of the above?

  ... etc.

The simple answer is that it cannot. Stock UA detail is a completely 
useless metric to be announcing for this and the other adaptation 
parameters important to both origins and surrogates.

I realize you said you would be re-writing the draft and gave some 
hints that you would be sending feature-based hints instead of UA 
strings. Looking forward to seeing that update, the -00 draft is not 
useful beyond gathering marketing statistics on non-removable stock 
browsers (ala ChromeOS, Windows MSIE, FirefoxOS). I posit that when you 
put useful device metrics into it instead of UA garbage you will find 
that simplifying the header name to just "Device:" makes a lot more 
sense and the privacy issues decrease (but not disappear).


> On 11/13/12 7:30 PM, "Eitan Adler" wrote:
>>On 13 November 2012 17:26, Ludin, Stephen wrote:
>>> As an intermediary/surrogate, this makes a lot of sense.  I can see 
>>> the
>>> specific behavior required being very situational.
>>When might I ask, would Akamai want to take action based on a browser
>>the user not using and may not even be installed?
>>Eitan Adler

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 01:02:43 UTC