- From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 97 10:36:06 PST
- To: mcmanus@appliedtheory.com
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Patrick McManus writes:
My comments are based on the belief that
draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-00.txt dated 1/21/97 is current.. let me
know if that's not the case.. Jeff makes some references to 'latest
draft' that had me confused, but now I think I realize that he just
means an unreleased version..
Yes, draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-01.txt is currently wending
its way through the Internet-Draft editor's queues. Sorry for
the confusion.
:: This leaves #3, loss-in-transit. My experience is that the most
:: common way for servers to lose HTTP requests is due to internal
:: congestion (i.e., the SYN_RCVD problem), so if hit-metering
:: improves caching, the reduction in congestion ought to help this.
:: But loss due to network partition is also a problem, and (according
:: to Vern Paxson's SIGCOMM '96 paper) it's getting worse. This
:: has inspired me to change the text in the next version of the
:: draft from "The proxy is not required to retry the [report]
:: if it fails" to "The proxy is not required to retry the [report]
:: if it fails (but it should do so, subject to resource constraints)."
:: This is still "best-efforts", but the specification now encourages
:: more effort.
A strictly editorial comment.. I like the content, how about the slightly
firmer language: The proxy SHOULD retry the [report] if it fails but
MAY abort it if resource constraints dictate.
The text I put into draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-01.txt says:
- The proxy is not required to retry the HEAD request if it
fails (this is a best-efforts design). To improve
accuracy, however, the proxy SHOULD retry failed HEAD
requests, subject to resource constraints.
Your wording is perhaps a little crisper; I'll think about
using it in a subsequent draft.
Thanks
-Jeff
Received on Thursday, 20 March 1997 10:42:30 UTC