Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message
Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu> Mon, 14 May 2012 07:34 UTC
Return-Path: <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9A021F85B6 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 00:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GH+BKsTTa+uT for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 00:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8900121F85A8 for <decade@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 00:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC37E10107D; Mon, 14 May 2012 09:29:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fc45MRxuJVgH; Mon, 14 May 2012 09:29:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FC910107B; Mon, 14 May 2012 09:29:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.189]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 14 May 2012 09:33:56 +0200
From: Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
To: Richard Alimi <rich@velvetsea.net>, Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [decade] Remote Get Object Message
Thread-Index: AQHNDoKBg3eg7H8F4ECL+B6dPaD8m5aDi/UwgARonwCAATCQAIAWz0iQgCakT4CAAoBigA==
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 07:33:55 +0000
Message-ID: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F524924CB6551@PALLENE.office.hd>
References: <CB9B9192.3D2C%Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C0467B90C@SAM.InterDigital.com> <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD131A168EC@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C046FCD3B@SAM.InterDigital.com> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23A4A68F@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+cvDab0X35tM82gWheCmc82o3uox2SEcs0vsbs=j4EJGvgD0w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+cvDab0X35tM82gWheCmc82o3uox2SEcs0vsbs=j4EJGvgD0w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.204]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "decade@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message
X-BeenThere: decade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "To start the discussion on DECoupled Application Data Enroute, to discuss the in-network data storage for p2p applications and its access protocol" <decade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade>
List-Post: <mailto:decade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 07:34:34 -0000
Hi, So, I agree that DECADE should not introduce new HTTP headers, let alone new message types, without real good reasons. Regarding GET vs. POST, I think it will be important to have a closer look at the protocol semantics. For example, if it is just HTTP-GET semantics and DECADE is using URI types that existing proxies understand (http in this case), HTTP-GET should be used (to enable using existing proxies). But there can be reasons to use POST, specifically if the DECADE protocol used non-HTTP URI types*and* existing proxy infrastructure should be used. In that case, it may be better to use POST (with a well-known local part of the URI, e.g., as in http://example.com/decade/get) and to provide DECADE request parameters such as the object name in form data parameters. It can be possible to cache responses to those requests (requiring cache-control headers). Best regards, Dirk > -----Original Message----- > From: decade-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:decade-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Alimi > Sent: Samstag, 12. Mai 2012 20:19 > To: Songhaibin > Cc: decade@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message > > I'm late to the game, but I agree that using the proxy concept for remote-get > and standard (simple) operations for the others seems pretty clean. > > Rich > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com> > wrote: > > I also agree with that using standard HTTP GET and POST can be better > > for remote get behavior and server to server data communication than > > inventing new headers. I also agree with the non-transparent proxy > concept. > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > -Haibin (as contributor) > > > > > > > > From: decade-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:decade-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Rahman, Akbar > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:55 PM > > > > > > To: Woundy, Richard > > Cc: decade@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message > > > > > > > > Hi Rich, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is a good point. I agree that for server-server > > communications (without a client involved) then standard HTTP GETs, > > PUTs and POSTs could be used without need for new headers or methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > Akbar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:53 PM > > To: Rahman, Akbar > > Cc: decade@ietf.org; Woundy, Richard > > Subject: RE: [decade] Remote Get Object Message > > > > > > > >> However, I guess this model breaks down if we are required to support > >> a use case where "DECADE server-1" wants to exchange content with > >> "DECADE server-2" without being triggered by a client. > > > > > > > > Yes I would tend to agree. One *could* make this look like a proxy > > case by forcing server-1 to act as its own proxy, but that seems inelegant. > > > > > > > > But then I would imagine that server-1 could obtain content from > > server-2 using a simple HTTP GET, and could push content to server-2 > > using a simple HTTP POST, right? We still wouldn't need a new > > X-DECADE-ORIGIN header or a new HTTP message, right? > > > > > > > > -- Rich > > > > > > > > From: Rahman, Akbar [mailto:Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 8:40 PM > > To: Woundy, Richard > > Cc: decade@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [decade] Remote Get Object Message > > > > > > > > Hi Rich, > > > > > > > > I agree that using a classic HTTP GET request (instead of a new > > modified > > POST) to implement the "DECADE-compatible Remote Get Object" > message > > is a good approach. > > > > > > > > I also like your proposal for the local DECADE server to act as a > > non-transparent proxy when processing a request from a client. (I.E. > > Client makes a request to "DECADE server-1" which then acts as a proxy > > by forwarding the request to "DECADE server-2"). > > > > > > > > However, I guess this model breaks down if we are required to support > > a use case where "DECADE server-1" wants to exchange content with > > "DECADE server-2" without being triggered by a client. > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > Akbar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: decade-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:decade-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Woundy, Richard > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:37 AM > > To: decade@ietf.org > > Subject: [decade] Remote Get Object Message > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > In Thursday's session, we discussed how to implement the Remote Get > > Object message. One proposal is to use HTTP Post with a new > > X-DECADE-ORIGIN header; another proposal is to define a new HTTP > > message. See slide 3 of > > <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-decade-4.pdf> and > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-decade-drp-03#section-8>. > > > > > > > > My thought (as an individual contributor, not as co-chair) is to use > > existing HTTP Get headers and leverage the base functionality of an > > HTTP caching proxy in DECADE. The local "DECADE" server would act as a > > caching proxy (with additional functionality of course) in order to > > reach the remote "DECADE" server, and cache the contents of the reply in > the "DECADE" > > storage. I have a "non-transparent proxy" behavior in mind, per the > > definition of "proxy" in RFC 2616 > > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-1.3). Also see > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13>, > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3040>, and perhaps > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3143> as well. > > > > > > > > Did we fully explore this possibility? As a co-chair, I can assure you > > that it would be much better to leverage existing protocols and > > standards, versus inventing new ones. > > > > > > > > -- Rich
- [decade] Remote Get Object Message Woundy, Richard
- Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message Woundy, Richard
- Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message Songhaibin
- Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message Richard Alimi
- Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message Dirk Kutscher