Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sat, 13 July 2013 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F65621F9DE2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 MYpNxVio6qXy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13B321F9EC8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UxwCz-000098-Ge for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:33:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:33:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UxwCz-000098-Ge@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UxwCr-00008O-RL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:33:33 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UxwCq-0000fM-JH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:33:33 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r6D9VYFC001864; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:31:34 +0200
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:31:34 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130713093134.GK32054@1wt.eu>
References: <CAP+FsNdcYhA=V5Z+zbt70b5e7WmcmXgjG5M9L3vfXeXfTwmRnw@mail.gmail.com> <51DE327C.7010901@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnXeqD6wh0dcJ1Dz=4PLAJNkDeGcCuzMr9ATd_7xS7nbGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcUkLf3CTAB4jwicnsiKWLGVY6=hX0k=0256SR_gcVt9A@mail.gmail.com> <092D65A8-8CB7-419D-B6A4-77CAE40A0026@gmail.com> <3835.1373612286@critter.freebsd.dk> <CD9E163F-1225-4DA8-9982-8BDBD16B1051@mnot.net> <1772.1373629495@critter.freebsd.dk> <20130712125628.GC28893@1wt.eu> <2032.1373699283@critter.freebsd.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2032.1373699283@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.055, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UxwCq-0000fM-JH ec5307b622b6b99a3cb209c20e6a2aa5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130713093134.GK32054@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18739
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 07:08:03AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20130712125628.GC28893@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
> 
> >Not really in fact. While I tend to generally agree with the points
> >you make for scalability, this one does not scale. One of the big
> >benefits of cookies is that client is responsible for synchronizing
> >information between multiple servers *if needed*. 
> 
> Since when has a minor scalability issue for Big Companies
> become more important than end-users privacy ?

Huh ? What end-user privacy issue do you see in having the DC and
server id in a cookie ? This is totally irrelevant.

Willy