- From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 14:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: burchard@horizon.cs.princeton.edu, www-talk@www10.w3.org
On Sun, 13 Aug 1995, Koen Holtman wrote: > 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] . You don't need the URI in the request structure because the request is linked to the URI itself, and sent when the URI is re-requested. > 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. Right, I wasn't suggesting the proxy invent values for referer if it didn't exist :) I would certainly be happy with From and RequestID if they were a part of the structure, but I was trying to find a balance between no data and every HTTP header imaginable. > In my opinion, domains that want to use their proxies to get a high > level of privacy should be allowed to do so. I totally envision anonproxy.cypherpunks.com starting up! :) > 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. Right. Or as I pointed out in the last message, the servers could be smart and give more "compliant" caches longer Expires times as a reward for their diligence. > 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. Violent agreement - this is really subtle subject right now for most people, but perhaps we can fight marketing with marketing :) Emphasize the concept that high cacheability improves reliability and response time and hits-per-server-dollar, and maybe they'll listen. A "Hits" pragma will really help this. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Received on Sunday, 13 August 1995 17:23:18 UTC