RE: regarding new working groups

[Gary Tomlinson <garyt@entera.com>]

>>At 11/9/00 1:32PM Hilarie Orman wrote:
>> I think this is more of an issue for Extensible Proxies than the
>> others.
>> 
>> I'm in complete agreement on the fault isolation issue.  For other
>> things, while roles and responsibilities are ultimately important,
binding
>> agreements on paper are perfectly acceptable (i.e., they do not
>> have to have an on-the-wire format).   

>At November 9, 2000 1:37PM Keith Moore wrote:
>I agree with this sentiment.  I'm not trying to insist that the details
>of such agreements be made a part of the protocol (though it would be
>nice if we could do it, I suspect it would take a long time before we 
>could find a good way to encode the needs of real users into a protocol)

I think there still exists a need for the content distribution & delivery
providers to divulge their vested interests as well (paper is fine).
Traditionally, the CDNs we know today represent the content provider's
interests, while ISP's are likely to represent the consumer's interests.  

Gary