Harald (the match peddler) wrote:
> I know I shouldn't be bringing more tinder to the bonfire, but
Cache interposition semantics on end-to-end policy evaluation and expiry
semantics is my cup of gasoline. The policy-de-jour is P3P, to which Mark
and I both ... contribute ... or er, illuminat
At 12.35 +0200 00-10-10, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>I know I shouldn't be bringing more tinder to the bonfire, but
You should, as many other people.
I.e. when I get the BOF/wg proposals, I want in parallel a list of
things which you belive should be part of a (sort of) complete model
of thi
At 09:03 10/10/2000 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>A list such as (but it should fit together):
>
> - Distribution of data from origin server to copies within administrative
>control of the owner of the data
> - Distribution of data from origin server to copies outside of
> - Preloading /
At 09.27 -0700 00-10-09, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
>So I think there should be a "CDN" BOF at the next IETF that will have
>several people walk down the list of work that think could be addressed in
>IETF WGs. And, WREC should meet - work on closure on the existing work - and
>have a dis
Mark, many thanks for your comments; I've had very similar thoughts and
concerns myself.
At 12:54 10/8/00 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>Recently, there's been a lot of discussion in various places about the
>status of WREC, particularly since there are a few other proposals for new
>working gr
discussion on rechartering. At that point, people should start
proposing WGs to the Applications Area Directors.
Barry
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 12:55 PM
> To: WREC Working Group; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To my knowledge the Content Alliance/Peering work hasn't had any such
> review to date, and I think that it's vital we have some
> discussion before
> any decision is made. I agree with Mark [Nottingham] that at first glance
it seems
> confusing that there's a proposal for a separate group and
Recently, there's been a lot of discussion in various places about the
status of WREC, particularly since there are a few other proposals for new
working groups (currently at the BoF request stage) that need to define a
relationship, or lack thereof, to WREC before they can move forward.
WREC ha
