- From: Donald Neal <d.neal@waikato.ac.nz>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 14:44:01 +1300
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
At 08:26 PM 9/07/97 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote: [...] >I have no problems with people putting creative protocol extensions >which violate a MUST in HTTP/1.1 in their proxies. I would only have >problems if people would go around distributing, or making available, >these proxies as being fully HTTP/1.1 conformant, without telling >anybody about the extra `special stuff'. > >We need to draw a firm line between `plain' and `extented', else there >will be all kinds of trouble when cascaded proxy networks which span >multiple organisations are going to be built. Such networks already exist, of course. Try asking the same question in another way. If I sign an agreement with another cache operator in which we state that our proxy caches are HTTP/1.1 compliant, does that contract allow either of us to alter our proxy caches in such a way that one or more of the MUSTs are violated? And if it does, what was the point of having a protocol specified at all? - Donald Neal
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 1997 19:58:22 UTC