Agree; I think that this can and should evolve into a general mechanism for
propagating messages from the origin to intermediaries.
I'd say the general characteristics of what we're chasing (straw man) are:
* intermediary (client) registers interest in resource(s) with a server (can
be, but doesn't have to be, the origin)
* once registered, message flow is predominantly server->client, initiated
by server
* message payload can be invalidations, object metadata/handling
instructions, deltas, etc. (don't know if log pushing is in scope)
So, 'U' for update is more accurate, if we go this way. One might also say
that 'C' for cache is a bit restrictive/misleading; How about Web
Intermediary Update Protocol -- WIUP?
I like 'W' for Web, as Web is > HTTP; it denotes that the protocol can
update anything with a URI.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 06:31:39AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> Given that this protocol specifies a notification transport (channels,
> relays, aggregations, etc.) and various notifications (invalidation,
> updates, preloads, log report, etc.) on top of it, the word "invalidation"
> seems less than descriptive as in WCIP.
>
> Along this line, it sounds to me that something like WCUP "web cache update
> protocol" would be better. If the name WCIP is over restrictive and we may
> need to change it sooner or later, I'd say we change it now. Do you feel
> the need?
>
> Dan
>
> > > >>> Dan Li <lidan@cisco.com> 11/15/00 01:57PM >>>
> > >Hi, please take a look of the WCIP draft before the IETF meeting, as we'd
> > >spend time on issue discussions and won't cover the draft in detail. This
> > >draft is a strawman, at least the following things need more work:
> > >
> > >- clearly define the relationship of wcip with normal cache-control
> > >directives.
> > >
> > >- specify in more detail the role of relay point, especially for channel
> > >aggregation. Can we or can we not aggregate heartbeats, possibly but
> > >cutting freshness guarantee.
> > >
> > >- pick a security model. Use SSL, or PGP signature, or both, and also the
> > >security of the channel info.
> > >
> > >- do we need a default port number? pros and cons wrt. to port 80.
> > >
> > >- are people happy with persistent TCP connection? are people happy with
> > >"delta consistency" (vs. eventual consistency, strong consistency, or
> > >anything else).
> > >
> > >- in the absence of a off-the-shelf realtime reliable multicast protocol,
> > >can we still run wcip on multicast UDP for scalability. See section 3.2.3.
> > >
> > >- preloading, log reporting, advanced event notification, programability,
> > >.. future stuff on vertical peering and dynamic content
> > >
> > >What do people think?
> > >
> > >Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >At 08:12 AM 11/15/00 -0800, Ian Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > > >>To: IETF-Announce: ;
> > > >>From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> > > >>Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-danli-wrec-wcip-00.txt
> > > >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:41:12 -0500
> > > >>
> > > >>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > > >>directories.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Title : WCIP: Web Cache Invalidation Protocol
> > > >> Author(s) : D. Li, P. Cao, M. Dahlin
> > > >> Filename : draft-danli-wrec-wcip-00.txt
> > > >> Pages : 26
> > > >> Date : 14-Nov-00
> > > >>
> > > >>Cache consistency is a major impediment to scalable content
> > > >>delivery. This document describes the Web Cache Invalidation
> > > >>Protocol (WCIP) which uses invalidations and updates to keep
> > > >>changing objects up to date in web caches. Moreover, it allows
> > > >>automatic one-to-may relay and many-to-one aggregation in a CDN
> > > >>(content delivery network) environment.
> > > >>
> > > >>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > > >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danli-wrec-wcip-00.txt
> > > >>
> > > >>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
> > > username
> > > >>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
> > > >>type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> > > >> "get draft-danli-wrec-wcip-00.txt".
> > > >>
> > > >>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
> > > >>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> > > >>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
> > > >>
> > > >>Send a message to:
> > > >> mailserv@ietf.org.
> > > >>In the body type:
> > > >> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-danli-wrec-wcip-00.txt".
> > > >>
> > > >>NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> > > >> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
> > > >> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> > > >> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> > > >> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail
> > > readers
> > > >> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> > > >> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> > > >> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> > > >> how to manipulate these messages.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> > > >>implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> > > >>Internet-Draft.
> > > >>
> > > >>Content-Type: text/plain
> > > >>Content-ID: <20001114131241.I-D@ietf.org>
> > > >>
> > > >>ENCODING mime
> > > >>FILE /internet-drafts/draft-danli-wrec-wcip-00.txt
> > > >>
> > > >><ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danli-wrec-wcip-00.txt>
> > > >
-- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST