RE: Section 7 of the architecture document

[Gary Tomlinson <garyt@entera.com>]

>At 15:24 11/3/00 -0500, Mark Day wrote:
>>I don't really understand why section 7 is in the document.  I assume it
has
>>something to do with the various "interception proxy" traumas that took
>>place in WREC, but I don't otherwise understand its role.  It's clear that
>>(1) "end-to-end" is assumed to be good, and that
>>(2) CDNs might somehow threaten "end-to-end", so
>>(3) an argument is constructed about why this is actually not the case.
>>
>>But I'm not sure I believe any of 1, 2, or 3, at least as currently
>>presented.
>>
>>What harm would befall us if we simply dropped section 7 entirely?
>

>At Friday, November 03, 2000 12:47 PM, Ian Cooper wrote:
>In itself I agree that the section doesn't appear to serve a particularly 
>useful purpose.
>
>However, while the "end-to-end" principle of IP is intact, the introduction

>of surrogates adds an interesting issue to the "end-to-end" nature of the 
>transaction itself.  One would hope that the peering/invalidation/control 
>mechanisms in place (and being developed) ensure that the surrogate's copy 
>of a piece of content is identical to that on the origin server.  I.e. that

>the surrogate is semantically transparent.  That's something I think needs 
>addressing.
>

Section 7 was crafted to explicitly address the adherence to the end-to-end
model 
architectural principles by this proposal and therefore avoid the issues we
ran into
with those awfull "interception proxies".  Upon further review, the document
explicitly 
calls this out in the introduction with appropriate citations to the
relevant RFCs.  Unless
there is strong opposition, I will remove section 7.

Gary