W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: Proxy naming

From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 08:06:32 +0100 (MET)
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <148.bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Paul Leach writes [in reply to Ari Luotonen]:
> I think the major difference between these two kinds of proxies is that 
> one is transparent, and the other isn't.  For example, what you call a 
> "server proxy" looks like a server to the client, and like a client to 
> the server.  Hence I find the proposed names confusing.
I propose the simple transparent proxy instead. (and non-transparent).
This needs no change in draft, but only in WGs terminology.
> The ability to transparently interpose agents is an important design 
> criterion for a protocol... in the current versions of HTTP, it can not 
> be done in general.
> One small step in this direction would be to allow full URLs in 
> requests to origin servers in HTTP 1.1. (In HTTP 1.0 and the current 
> HTTP 1.1 draft, they are only allowed in requests to proxies.)  (The 
> use of Host: may already meet this requirement... if so, maybe this 
> suggested change might end up in deprecated usage.)
Good idea, but requires a lot of discussion for 1.0-1.1 interoperatibility.
(That discussion would be useful without this proposal.)

Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 1995 00:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC