[decade] Remote Get Object Message

"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <richard_woundy@cable.comcast.com>
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 6805A21F86CE for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 IbVtI4hymD0r for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB4D21F864B for <decade@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.56.114]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.11521199; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:24:10 -0600
Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::a5b0:e5c4:df1b:2367]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::84e8:95f3:f13b:169e%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:36:35 -0400
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: "decade@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Remote Get Object Message
Thread-Index: AQHNDoKBg3eg7H8F4ECL+B6dPaD8mw==
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:36:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CB9B9192.3D2C%Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.73]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CB9B91923D2CRichardWoundycablecomcastcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:36:39 -0000

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<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<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