Subject: [CDNi] CDNI Logging - cs-uri

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:16:11 +0100

Colleagues,

draft-cdni-logging-02 section 3.2.1 states:

   o  cs-uri: [Editor's note: rename "sr-uri" ?]

      *  format: <uri>

      *  semantic: this is the absolute-URI of the request received by
         the Surrogate.  [Editor's Note: do we agree this should be an
         absolute-URI even if teh request uses a relative-URI?]

      *  occurrence: there MUST be zero or exactly one instance of this
         field.

It is cs-uri because it is the URI the User Agent presented to the surrogate. sr-uri would be the URI that the surrogate presented to its upstream source on a cache miss.

It should be the absolute URI as specified in the Request-URI (if the Request-URI includes a host) or an absolute URI constructed from the Host + Request-URI IMO.

Ben

---

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:02:37 +0000

On 28 May 2013, at 10:16, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Colleagues,

     *  format: <uri>

Agreed.
I fixed the text and it now reads:

   o  cs-uri:

      *  format: <uri>

      *  semantic: this is the complete URI of the request received by
         the Surrogate.  It includes the scheme, the authority
         (regardless of whether or not it is explicitely included in the
         request-URI), the path (from the request-URI), query (when
         present in the request-URI) and fragment (when present in the
         request-URI).

   o  ucdn-centric-uri:

      *  format: <uri>

      *  semantic: this is a complete URI derived from the complete URI
         of the request received by the Surrogate but transformed by the
         entity generating or transmitting the CDNI Logging Record, in a
         way that is agreed upon between the two ends of the CDNI
         Logging interface, so the transformed URI is meaningful to the
         uCDN.  For example, the two ends of the CDNI Logging interface
         could agree that the ucdn-centric-uri strips the part of the
         delivery-uri that exposes which individual Surrogate actually
         performed the delivery.  The details of modification performed
         to generate the ucdn-centric-uri, as well as the mechanism to
         agree on these modifications between the two sides of the CDNI
         Logging interface are outside the scope of the present
         document.  It includes the scheme, the authority, the path, and
         (when used) the query and fragment.

      *  occurrence: there MUST be one and only one instance of this
         field.

Let me know if you have additional comments.

Francois

Ben

_______________________________________________
CDNi mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:20:23 +0100

Francois,

Only comment would be that I don't think fragments are ever sent in Request-URIs but I suppose there's no harm in saying to log it in the case a User Agent erroneously sends one.

Ben

On 28 May 2013, at 10:02, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:

>  
> On 28 May 2013, at 10:16, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> Colleagues,
>> 
>> [email-masked]

---

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:40:22 +0000

On 28 May 2013, at 11:20, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
 wrote:

> Francois,
> 
> Only comment would be that I don't think fragments are ever sent in Request-URIs

Good point.

> but I suppose there's no harm in saying to log it in the case a User Agent erroneously sends one.

This makes me realise that I was more or less re-defining a "http_URL" , which is actually perfectly well defined already in section 3.2.2 of RFC2616:
"
http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
"
So what I've done is add an explicit reference to that definition. I think this makes it brief and non-ambigous. So it now reads:

"
   o  cs-uri:

      *  format: <uri>

      *  semantic: this is the complete http_URL (as specified in
         [RFC2616]) of the request received by the Surrogate.

   o  ucdn-centric-uri:

      *  format: <uri>

      *  semantic: this is a complete http_URL (as specified in
         [RFC2616]) derived from the complete URI of the request
         received by the Surrogate but transformed by the entity
         generating or transmitting the CDNI Logging Record, in a way
         that is agreed upon between the two ends of the CDNI Logging
         interface, so the transformed URI is meaningful to the uCDN.
         For example, the two ends of the CDNI Logging interface could
         agree that the ucdn-centric-uri strips the part of the
         delivery-uri that exposes which individual Surrogate actually
         performed the delivery.  The details of modification performed
         to generate the ucdn-centric-uri, as well as the mechanism to
         agree on these modifications between the two sides of the CDNI
         Logging interface are outside the scope of the present
         document.

"

All good?

Francois

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:49:49 +0100

works for me. Ben