W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:44:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP94pTfgrncpd00ZW8cUmsiAMfUdbuqR3b1x=aw3=GUOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Unless I am misreading this text, it seems to not provide any guidance at
all about how the pseudonyms are constructed, so I don't really see how it
addresses the issue of pseudonym collision

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:04 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> See:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/59505dbd1883
>
>
> > On 21 Dec 2018, at 3:34 pm, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/20/18 7:19 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> On 21 Dec 2018, at 11:40 am, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> >>> I agree with EKR here. The more I think about the situation -- and
> Mark's responses in particular ("There are relatively few CDNs, and they're
> pretty aware of each other") -- the more I'm convinced that, while the
> proposed solution *probably* works in 2018, it may well fail in 2028,
> depending on how the CDN market evolves. If history is any guide, engineers
> are pretty terrible futurists. The best we can do is plan for scaling
> beyond that which we can presently imagine (cf. IPv4).
> >>>
> >>> I think some means of collision avoidance here is required prior to
> document publication.
> >> I agree engineers are terrible futurists; however (and perhaps as a
> result), we're really really good at over-engineering things for
> anticipated problems that don't eventuate. My viewpoint here is informed by
> observing how many Web-related registries operate (or fail to).
> >
> >
> > No one here is asking for a registry.
> >
> >
> >> The current specification allows us to insert more stringent
> requirements in the future if necessary. Personally, I think that's
> sufficient.
> >>
> >> However, if you insist, I think the lowest-impact way to address this
> is to adopt a structure similar to that used in Via, (hostname under
> control of the CDN or pseudonym) and encourage (but not require) use of a
> hostname.
> >
> >
> > It's probably enough to say that it has to end in a domain name under
> control of the CDN, but your proposal works as well.
> >
> >
> >> If we do that, we might want to revisit the example, since its use of
> 'host' might be confusing to readers.
> >
> >
> > I always assume that spec changes that impact examples imply changes in
> the corresponding examples, so yes. Thanks.
> >
> >
> > /a
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2019 21:45:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 27 January 2019 21:45:32 UTC