Re: [decade] Remote Get Object Message
Richard Alimi <rich@velvetsea.net> Sat, 12 May 2012 18:18 UTC
Return-Path: <richard.alimi@gmail.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 9B83421F8589 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 MGRMOhJimlQ3 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A380221F8522 for <decade@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so4196327yen.31 for <decade@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NyBEi0iRHmeP6aG/xM+c7i3E7C3a1tEK9EAjL7Ve0Mw=; b=x0XffbA3Kp5H36mTsxceaYsCpGhaWeAp3aTTczZiRoQ+fHPPAcspkUYAbd6Rhxx3sI XC9P6/YcBZDxmfu6Z/4pouJ0ccBc2f7LLesW62oQdW4BwVHch/X/okeU4psC6GFWyMrV BFt1vzpOYQ3mCg32azlpNwn+XtxfxAdTnNqhH2aaSvin3khMhPHPHEtNCbjk1Cq33O2i bWI+WlphNf4Gwwobdxi9qSVS8TYjBMZNc6gKWXFa2KpIPz77p1di/FtXkBctl1SnplS2 0zAos/MO057Ap87wNHoECdeoZdVOtjOHBTXDoI59oqeeFE+/5s4rj0naU9D2uYv1t8Dh Q77g==
Received: by 10.42.153.10 with SMTP id k10mr1126782icw.24.1336846734020; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: richard.alimi@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.209.82 with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23A4A68F@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
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>
From: Richard Alimi <rich@velvetsea.net>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:33 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 040wCR-x46h7bPT0LWf8psb0EOQ
Message-ID: <CA+cvDab0X35tM82gWheCmc82o3uox2SEcs0vsbs=j4EJGvgD0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:18:55 -0000
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