W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:32:09 +0100
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@measurement-factory.com>
Message-ID: <20111129133209.GA8044@1wt.eu>
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:55:56PM +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why someone would code some software that way, but I 
> don't think it's correct to call that a proxy.  At least it's not HTTP 
> compliant.

I 100% agree with you, that's why I stated that it was more of a gateway than
a proxy.

> It could be argued that strategy of proxy operation is simply not valid.

Agreed too! The term "proxy" is often used when connections are
re-established (TCP proxies) but I regularly repeat that in the HTTP
terminology that's not enough to be called a proxy. An HTTP proxy is a
well-defined entity that cannot simply be assumed by a TCP proxy.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 13:33:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT