+1. I don’t think we actually use (old) steering anywhere in production. Steering does support the regex feature (use a regex to “pin” to a DS) and I don’t think the client_steering does, so we might want to consider moving that feature into client_steering. Steering also supports an overwrite header that may or may not be in client steering.
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 13:14 Rawlin Peters <rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > I think we should consider deprecating the STEERING delivery service > type in favor of CLIENT_STEERING. > > tl;dr: > Everything that a STEERING delivery service provides can be provided > by a CLIENT_STEERING delivery service instead, and CLIENT_STEERING > provides more advanced features like Geolocation-based steering that > are not available to the plain STEERING type. There are some small > differences in request payloads when passing the `?format=json` query > parameter, but other than that the client-facing interface is the same > between CLIENT_STEERING and STEERING. > > What do you think of this proposal? Can you think of a good reason why > we should keep STEERING in addition to CLIENT_STEERING? If you're > skeptical or unsure, feel free to read the longer explanation below. > > > Longer explanation: > The main difference in the results returned by STEERING vs > CLIENT_STEERING is that the STEERING result only contains the "top" > target. This "top" target can still be returned as a json payload, as > a 200 or a 302, depending on query parameters passed in the request, > which is the same behavior as CLIENT_STEERING. However, > CLIENT_STEERING will include *all* of the possible targets not just > the "top" target. > > For clients that just consume and follow the 302, changing the > delivery service from STEERING to CLIENT_STEERING won't really affect > the clients -- that behavior would stay the same. However, if clients > of the STEERING-type are passing `?format=json` in the request, that > JSON payload differs slightly from STEERING to CLIENT_STEERING. > > For STEERING, the payload looks like this: > {"location": "http://myedge.myds.mycdn.example.net/foo?format=json"} > For CLIENT_STEERING, it uses an array like this: > {"locations":["http://myedge.myds.mycdn.example.net/foo?format=json"]} > > For either STEERING or CLIENT_STEERING, if the client passes > `?trred=false` to get a 200 response instead of a 302, the payload > formats are the same. > > So, we couldn't really automatically convert all STEERING DSes to > CLIENT_STEERING through a DB migration because of those small > differences in the `?format=json` payloads between the two, but we > could at least prevent the creation of new STEERING-type DSes during > the deprecation period and encourage existing STEERING-type DSes to be > converted to CLIENT_STEERING. Then after a major release or two we can > draw a line in the sand and automatically convert STEERING types to > CLIENT_STEERING, and/or make it a requirement that all STEERING-types > must be converted to CLIENT_STEERING before a certain major release. > > Eliminating the STEERING type would allow us to simplify Traffic > Router a little bit and make it less confusing for users by not having > two different STEERING types to choose from. Going forward a lot of > new features are only being added to the CLIENT_STEERING type because > they don't really apply to STEERING, so the feature disparity between > the two is only going to grow. > > - Rawlin >