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: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 22:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: Donald Neal <d.neal@waikato.ac.nz>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970709225102.26041D-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>


On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Donald Neal wrote:

> 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?

Thats fine ... but this thread started with Dave Kristol's objection to
the addition of a MUST which objection I supported. So I wish to avoid
unnecessary MUSTs and your contract will hold.

Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 1997 22:55:21 EDT

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