Re: "Hits" pragma

Brian Behlendorf:
>[..Statistics to be sent by proxy caches..]
>So, it looks like a structure of
>host timestamp referer
>would satisfy a most applications.

Make that

URI timestamp host_or_just_domain_prefix [referer] [from] [request-id] .

The [referer], [from], [request-id] fields are all optional, they
should be included by the cache if the user agent request to the cache
included them.

In my opinion, domains that want to use their proxies to get a high
level of privacy should be allowed to do so.

If all domains decide they want maximum privacy, we get 'open
rebellion' again (though I hate to use the term `rebellion' for
something initiated by the markering department), so maybe there has
to be some incentive to give away privacy.  Just shipping popular
proxy cache and browser software with statistics-friendly default
settings might be sufficient.

I don't want Referer to become a required field, especially not when
crossing server boundaries.  That is the main reason why we need the
Request-Id discussed last month on this list.

>Far too many companies have been given Orwellian promises about what data 
>they can get, unfortunately.

Yes.  However, this is no good reason for giving them what they have
been promised.

To draw a parallel: I don't see the Usenet community inventing
protocol extensions to make spamming use less IP packets, they just
try to educate companies about spamming being a bad idea.

The web community can do the same thing.  Maybe we should begin by
inventing an interesting term for the practice of service providers
disabling caching just to get better statistics.

 cache piracy?
 marketing packets?
 Orwellian URL?

In addition to making protocol extensions, we can try saving the world
through the Jargon Watch section of Wired.  I am not kidding: this is
a serious, though postmodern, proposal.

>        Brian


Received on Sunday, 13 August 1995 06:10:41 UTC