Subject: RE: Here you have, ;o)

From: Michel Colin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:10:56 +0100

yep my mail gateway catch it too
but it seems to spread very quickly ...
we captured more than 10 copies in
the last 2 minuts

>===== Original Message From <[email-masked]> =====
>Hi:
>Check This!

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:29:09 -0800

Can you please have a look at this draft, and let me know what you think of it.

Is it ok to publish this as an Informational RFC?

    Regards, Patrik

-- 
Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>       Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-8509
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC

---

From: Ingrid Melve <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:06:13 +0100

> Is it ok to publish this as an Informational RFC?

I would say NO, unless Informational is "whatever enters the RFC 
editors queue".  See comments.

Source routing by changing format of A records in DNS is a 
_bad_ technical idea.  Yet another URN solution is another bad idea.

(Messing with DNS in creative ways to serve content "closer" to clients 
may yield the desired results, but this is _not_ the way to do it.  And 
this does not describe how it is done today)

Ingrid

Comments on draft-jl-pcdp-01.txt:

The draft tries to describe a proposed DNS change that will give 
information on "closeness" to a client, based on the client IP address.  
No references to any DNS specifications.  No discussion of consequences 
for changes in specification of DNS records.  Changing the format of 
A-records is not trivial.

No discussion of other solutions to the closeness problem (and why 
those solutions mostly fail).

The author discusses this for FTP and HTTP, but there term "TCP" is not 
mentioned.  And the scheme proposed seems to live in a CIDR-less world. 
Why replace routing, and all the neat things routing do?  Why limit the 
proposal to FTP and HTTP?

Round robin DNS is described as the only deployed answer to "multiple 
server for same object".  Not even the common CDN-technologies are 
mentioned (apart from total silence on multicast and anycast).  Not a 
single word on caching.

Where does the idea that multiple hop via multiple ISPs is a problem 
come from?  As long as the content is delivered, there is no problem.

The most favorable reading of the draft is that the author is trying to 
implement URNs in his own way.  See URN specs for discussion on why 
this particular solution was not chosen.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jon Zeeff)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:09:57 -0500 (EST)

> this does not describe how it is done today)
 
Unless I misunderstand your comment, this _is_ how it is being done today and
if this isn't the right approach, why and what do you suggest?

---

From: Ingrid Melve <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:53:17 +0100

> if this isn't the right approach, why and what do you suggest?

The draft does not describe how DNS-messing is done today.  The 
description in the draft is not the way to do it.

I do not want to pass judgement on the current load-balancing and replication 
mechanisms based on this draft.  See RFC3040 for info on some of the 
issues involved (even if 3040 does not cover CDNs as thoroughly as may 
be desired).

Ingrid

---

From: "Laurent Malka" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:39:47 +0200

hi
Can you please explain me why I am in this mailing list?

Thanks

L.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ingrid Melve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:53 PM
To: Jon Zeeff
Cc: Ingrid Melve; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-jl-pcdp-01.txt

I do not want to pass judgement on the current load-balancing and
replication
mechanisms based on this draft.  See RFC3040 for info on some of the
issues involved (even if 3040 does not cover CDNs as thoroughly as may
be desired).

Ingrid