W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: The problem with proxy-revalidate, and a proposed solution

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:45:19 -0800 (PST)
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961220123340.15193F-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2132

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

> on whether the cache involved is at an end-client system, or a
> shared proxy cache.  (We can probably treat a non-shared proxy
> cache as being a sort of "distributed" implementation of an end-client
> cache.)

Good point ... actually the right wording, I think, would describe 
not the implementation (end-client vs shared proxy) but more like
"on behalf of a single identified user". It should be considered legal
for a proxy to be shared but be 'end-client' under the current wording
as long as the proxy has identified the user and interprets the caching
rules on a per individual user basis just as if the proxy were not
shared. There are some interesting application and economies of scale
possibilities which I wouldn't want precluded by the letter of the 'law'.

I think the intent is that an individual 'human' receive reliable
delivery of information. I believe automated clients are a subset
of what a human might do in a global information space and such 
clients can be modeled as humans. It would be OK for a single
human to use two different UAs against the same cache for example but
the automated client is probably not going to do that.

Dave Morris
Received on Friday, 20 December 1996 12:54:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:21 UTC