Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message
"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Tue, 03 April 2012 13:55 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 0E4C611E8096 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 06:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 kO1d1We2ImTH for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC3311E8079 for <decade@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 06:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:55:17 -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_01CD11A1.664F980E"
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:55:16 -0400
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C046FCD3B@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-reply-to: <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD131A168EC@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [decade] Remote Get Object Message
Thread-Index: AQHNDoKBg3eg7H8F4ECL+B6dPaD8m5aDi/UwgARonwCAATCQAA==
References: <CB9B9192.3D2C%Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C0467B90C@SAM.InterDigital.com> <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD131A168EC@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com>
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2012 13:55:17.0471 (UTC) FILETIME=[66BD6EF0:01CD11A1]
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: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:55:27 -0000
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 <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
- [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