Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message

"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Sat, 31 March 2012 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.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 BBBFF21F8663 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 C7Ztc2+TJWmc for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96AD21F8688 for <decade@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:40:03 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD0ED6.CEF105E6"
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:40:00 -0400
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C0467B90C@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-reply-to: <CB9B9192.3D2C%Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [decade] Remote Get Object Message
Thread-Index: AQHNDoKBg3eg7H8F4ECL+B6dPaD8m5aDi/Uw
References: <CB9B9192.3D2C%Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2012 00:40:03.0067 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF7FECB0:01CD0ED6]
Cc: 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: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:40:05 -0000

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
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-decade-4.pdf%3c> >
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