Re: [decade] Open Issue-2 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol").

Hongqiang Harry Liu <lampson0505@gmail.com> Wed, 12 September 2012 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lampson0505@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 CAAC421F863F for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.662
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.352, BAYES_20=-0.74, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uDcwVMsFDlx5 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB6021F8627 for <decade@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so2367727pbb.31 for <decade@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=mN8vpnAJir3RFCZxKfPLcJ6JUJ1dHgmyARXzzjgeooE=; b=ydjpuhR4WF3fTqVFOosZzrmCRVG+kFxAnvDAhuMPtmWnWg/CYr6BYGqsdHnbe8T6Z1 P1iUpsQ39lXwpISU7P4T9SqWw3aPJt0bVLv4GvwmyzRkXqlb6mtPjgowuN6dLD1BGdSA uyp+olZQDEqtY69F5Vaq6gzJgOFICXyhjdPYwtwGXs/6eUfz+FVuRKBoHGd7clTCsbhT Wimlkm7shP9drp2haPPQ1PPmeTmYnz5stGBoLlP9TUpqv+SbH8L+vCWjgNLEJo1g8SFE m4Qx5SvwSuQ7PClpb70QNWRdTDRnNR4u7lJB/X0CbB3njtsVMl219Nzgu1qiziO3KDj5 8r8A==
Received: by 10.68.231.130 with SMTP id tg2mr17038631pbc.70.1347459039865; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [223.82.202.196] ([223.82.202.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id to6sm5281815pbc.12.2012.09.12.07.10.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <505097DA.3060501@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:10:34 -0400
From: Hongqiang Harry Liu <lampson0505@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: decade@ietf.org
References: <AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7A07B@SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7A07B@SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040209040604020707090703"
Subject: Re: [decade] =?gb2312?b?T3BlbiBJc3N1ZS0yIKOoZHJhZnQgIkFuIEhUVFAtYmFz?= =?gb2312?b?ZWQgREVDQURFIFJlc291cmNlIFByb3RvY29sIqOpLg==?=
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: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:10:45 -0000

Hi Danhua

I am wondering whether we need to add corresponding HTTP proxy headers
in the REMOTE_GET_Object case.
For example: Via, Proxy-Authorization.

Of course we can use OAuth to replace Proxy-Authorization.
In next version, Section 8 needs more details on message flows.

Thank you very much

Harry

On 09/05/2012 04:49 AM, Wangdanhua wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The following is another open issue left for “An HTTP-based DECADE
> Resource Protocol” (draft-wang-drp). We’re looking forward to your
> opinions and comments.
>
> Since IETF 83^rd in Pairs, we received a lot of comments on the
> defining of “REMOTE_GET_Object Message” from WG as well as mailing
> list discussion. The main idea includes 1) not introduce new HTTP
> headers, let alone new message types; 2) leverage the base
> functionality of a “non-transparent proxy” in DECADE, local DECADE
> Server to act as a non-transparent proxy when processing a request
> from a DECADE Client. We adopted WG’s suggestion and already updated
> the draft (see “Section 8. Remote_Get_Object Message” in the draft).
> We need more review and comments to see whether we could make further
> effort.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Danhua
>