On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:58:36PM +0000, Brotman, Alexander wrote:
> The points are valid. I suppose I just expect that the tiny file will
> reside in memory and require little to serve it (beyond as you stated,
> initiating a session),
The "initiatig a session" cost is precisely the cost that caching
helps to avoid. Any request rate faster than 1/min becomes ~1/min
when a 60/s cache is enabled.
> resulting in little benefit.
I disagree there.
> Just seems like we're
> stating something that could/should be left to the implementer/admin at
> the site to implement as is proper for their environment.
The request is to NOT prohibit caching between the reverse proxy and
the provider, and to give said provider some guidance on pitfalls to
avoid.
Daniel's proposal looked on track to me.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
