[With apologies to everyone getting 2 copies. We're probably all on the
mailing list, but just in case...]
At 12:52 11/25/2000 -0800, Dan Li wrote:
>At 12:18 PM 11/22/00 -0800, hardie@equinix.com wrote:
>>URI Update Protocol would end up being "You up?", a common enough
>>protocol message in this arena.
>
>with WIUP, it may sound like "Why Up" ;-) Could we get rid of one vowel?
>
>I agree "cache" as in WCUP is too restrictive, and yet "intermediary" in
>WIUP is too loose. How about a Web Proxy Update Protocol?
The protocol has use in CDN environments (for example, it could be of use
in CDN peering), in which case "proxy" is too restrictive. Not sure that
simply using "proxy" gets the right message across anyway (it's the cache
within a caching proxy that's being updates).
"Distributed Web Object Consistency Protocol" (choose your acronym to come
up with something funky) seems closer to what's being considered.
All that said, we're perhaps spending too much time thinking about what to
call it when we should be working on what it actually does and how it does
it. (Hmm, memories of a certain Dilbert come to mind.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST