per-entity - Re: [Per-Entity] HTTPS transport and TLS trust

Subject: Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

List archive

Re: [Per-Entity] HTTPS transport and TLS trust

From: "Cantor, Scott" <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Per-Entity] HTTPS transport and TLS trust
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:19:51 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 164.107.81.210) smtp.mailfrom=osu.edu; incommon.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;incommon.org; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=osu.edu;
Ironport-phdr: 9a23:YpFPXBCJqqCnYGhkuQNDUyQJP3N1i/DPJgcQr6AfoPdwSP3ypcbcNUDSrc9gkEXOFd2Crakb26yL6Ou5BCQp2tWojjMrSNR0TRgLiMEbzUQLIfWuLgnFFsPsdDEwB89YVVVorDmROElRH9viNRWJ+iXhpW1aJhKqfxJ4PKH4HJLTk9Wf1ua5/JjWZAMOgyCyK/smNBis6AjXqsgKkKNjLK02zx7OpD1PYesAlk1yIlfG1T314Nu35toryC9Xp+5rv5pLWKPmeL5+F5RfFylgPmwosp64/SLfRBeCsyNPGl4dlQBFVlDI
Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99

On 9/6/16 7:16 PM, Paul Caskey wrote:
>
> To the extent that's true, then I would question the need for a CDN,
> as opposed to a normal highly-available infrastructure (which would be
> less expensive to operate).

I think the point of the CDN was not performance but in fact
availability. I thought the issue was that InCommon wasn't comfortable
providing that HA infrastructure, at least enough that it was thought to
be worth investigating what a CDN would offer and cost.

-- Scott

Re: [Per-Entity] HTTPS transport and TLS trust, (continued)

List archive

Re: [Per-Entity] HTTPS transport and TLS trust