- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:45:18 -0800
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Cc: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEnTvdACGN+0_xJyjXe22hT4qZ62Y5-GjvEOHdPY=8ui4zQBMw@mail.gmail.com>
While we are on the subject of caching, we have the interesting spectacle here in the US [1] of an FCC Commissioner calling interception proxies "open caching" and arguing *against* user privacy protections that, as a side-effect, impede such caches. …Mark [1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/netflix-refused-to-answer-encryption-allegation-fcc-commissioner-says/ On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:37 PM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote: > > Pervasive low-bandwidth and power/CPU constrained edge networks are > > going to become very common. > > The case where a caching proxy helps in theory is when the uplink is > constrained compared to the edge network from the proxy to the end > point. If the edge network is itself slow, the case for proxy caches > is weak even on theoretical grounds. > > > Smarter hub nodes with > > minimal/intermittent uplink could profitably serve signed/hashed > > resources in a proxy context > > Why would these "things" all be requesting the same large resources? > (Surely the "things" aren't all requesting currently-popular movies on > the same edge network.) > > > for use cases where confidentiality is > > not necessary and direct HTTPS authority is too heavy. > > What are these use cases? Isn't the expectation that the "things" on > the Internet of Things will be even closer to people and, therefore, > be even more privacy-sensitive than what we have now? > > > Is the Web going to be part of the "Internet of Things"? > > I think debating that question requires agreement on what the Web is. > See https://www.mnot.net/blog/2014/12/04/what_is_the_web > > If you assume the proxy to be near the "thing" in the Internet of > things, it implies the "thing" would be a client--i.e. a Web browser. > The W3C has already been through an era when it was claimed that > limited browsers on underpowered devices were important. Writing specs > with that assumption turned out to be a mistake: The Web really took > off on mobile once the devices became powerful enough to run the kind > of browser engine desktop browser also use. > > As for the "thing" in the Internet of things being a Web server, > there's less relevance to proxies on the edge network where the > "thing" resides. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@hsivonen.fi > https://hsivonen.fi/ > >
Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 20:45:46 UTC