W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2001

Re: intermediaries

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:15:51 -0800
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010319131542.D15022@akamai.com>

FYI - The caching community has settled on 'surrogate' to replace
'reverse proxy'; see RFC3040. (whether people actually will *use* the
term is another story)


On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:24:10AM -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> Yves,
> I think what you are describing in this scenario is typically called a
> gateway or in some cases a reverse proxy (a term that I don't really
> like). You are right that it is an intermediary but it really is an
> intermediary at a higher level than a SOAP/XMLP intermediary.
> Intermediaries can live at all levels and in the scenario you describe,
> it is part of the "application".
> In a previous version of [1] which you can find at [2]. Node IV is an
> example of an application layer intermediary.
> Henrik
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xp-reqs-05.html#fig1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/02/01-xmlprotocol-model2.gif
> >But note that S did the "real" generation of the reply.
> >Of course S has some knowledge, and we can argue that it will 
> >perform another query rather than just transporting the 
> >received one, but still, the intermediary SCD is after S (and 
> >so is W). So it really say "reply to this" to what we call an 
> >intermediary rather than "go and get a reply to this" (which 
> >is the current semantic of an intermediary). This, of course 
> >leads to a more hop-by-hop model.

Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 16:16:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC