- From: James Gosling <jag@scndprsn.eng.sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 13:40:51 +0800
- To: brian@organic.com, connolly@beach.w3.org
- Cc: tmyerson@iserver.interse.com, www-talk@w3.org
> Hmmm... care to give some details about these "ideas coming down > the pipe?" Here are my thoughts, after having surveyed this space > for a while: > > > ******* I. The Request-ID: header field: > ******* II. The business-card authentication scheme The problem I have with many schemes like this (leaving the ethical questions alone for now!) is that they don't work in the face of proxy caching. Either the cache uses the fields as part of the "cache key", dramatically reducing the hit rate, or it doesn't, defeating the purpose of the extension: to get access information back to the provider. High proxy cache hit rates are *essential* for the web to scale. The architecture has to avoid white-hot servers handling millions of clients directly. Load has to be shifted to local proxies, which under current caching schemes makes the user information very murky. One solution to have a header field in the reply that contains something like this: aggregate-demographics: email-addr Which if recieved by a proxy server would cause it to accumulate some standard set of useful-but-not-invasive statistics (if such exist!) about uses of the page and mail them to the email address on a periodic basis.
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 1995 16:44:52 UTC