W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: An experiment in producing RFC1122-style requirements checklist

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Cc: Albert Lunde <albert-lunde@nwu.edu>, rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970602165037.18252A-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>


On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Josh Cohen wrote:

> > > Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
> > Non-caching proxies may be used to access thru firewalls, or as we
> > are doing at our institution, for inward access to domain-limited
> > services. In our case, we are using a netscape proxy server
> > with caching off, but I think the firewall tool kit has
> > a simpler non-caching proxy, and there is definely an
> > application "niche" for this sort of thing.
> > 
> This is true.  I would definitely agree that the non-caching
> proxy is common, and has different uses, as well as different rules
>  than a caching proxy.
> 
> So, I think it would be worthwhile to list them differently.

I agree that there a whole class of web facility augmentations which can
be accomplished with a non-caching proxy. ZooWorks Research (from
HitachiSoft) is an example of such an application. BUT I'm not convinced
that is is necessary to list them differently, at least with a dedicated
column. That is probably a judgement call as the Caching proxy column is
created ... Perhaps add a code which says this applies to both kinds of
proxies or just a caching proxy ... Working from memory, there aren't
too many non-caching proxy considerations which don't apply to the
client and server as well. Persistent connections, pipelining, and
hop-hop headers so to keep the basic information more readible, perhaps
a second short list of the 'simple proxy' considerations.

Dave Morris
Received on Monday, 2 June 1997 17:06:00 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:43 EDT