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

Re: ISSUE PROXY-AUTHORIZATION: Proposal wording

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: dmk@bell-labs.com, frystyk@w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970704122227.28454B-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>


On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Koen Holtman wrote:

> >Me too ... I have a single user proxy product which is a direct agent
> >for its owner and only user ... I see no reason to restrict the behavior
> >of such a proxy.
> 
> I would argue that products like this are not proxies in the HTTP
> sense, but remote-controlled user agents.  Thus, any HTTP proxy
> transparency rules do not apply to them.

Perhaps, but the app is based on HTTP proxy support and not a private
protocol between the 'real' client and the application. I don't see a need
to define a whole new mode of operation when thus far the proxy rules
generally apply.  I guess this is a lot like question of what an
HTTP server is, a client is, etc. From a protocol perspective the
server is everything that conspires to deliver the response and I would
interpret a proxy as everything that conspires to act as an agent for
the original / upstream client and hence would favor wording which does
not restrict behavior which otherwise doesn't compromise the reason behind
the protocol.

Dave Morris 
Received on Friday, 4 July 1997 12:33:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:46 EDT