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

Re: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich....

From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:02:06 +0000
Message-Id: <3470CCEE.7DABF259@algroup.co.uk>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, henrysa@exchange.microsoft.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4705
Jim Gettys wrote:
> Given the heat that this generated at Munich, I'd appreciate it
> if others read Josh's mail, and proposed change to close out the issue.
> Henry, do you agree?
> > "Proxy servers MUST upgrade all requests to the highest
> > version supported by the proxy"
> I also wonder if "Proxy servers" is correct...  Should it be
> "Caching proxy servers", to deal with the case of a transparent firewall
> proxy?

Caching (was that the agreed spelling <duck>?) doesn't quite capture it.
The only thing I can think of, but it is horribly unweildy, is:
"non-transparent proxies that operate at the HTTP layer".



Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Received on Monday, 17 November 1997 15:04:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC