- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 17:38:59 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding writes: > *groan* > There is a whole lot of babbling here ... etc. Double groan. Fine, call a program residing on a firewall that accepts HTTP requests from the outside world, does *whatever*, including maybe even caching results, and forwards those packets to other servers inside a network a "gateway". I'll take everything you said at face value except: > Now, what happens behind the curtains (between the gateway and the > origin server) is none of our business. There is no need for that > communication to even be HTTP. While it seems *possible* to take that position, it just doesn't seem even slightly *useful*, because in practice what will be running inside the network will be other HTTP servers, not XYZ servers using some proprietary protocol. True, it is no longer on a public network, so it isn't a matter of standardization that affects public traffic, but it *is* an issue of compatibility between vendors. Now maybe the multiple port thing is such a remote case in this instance that it shouldn't be supported, or should be required to be entirely handled by the "gateway". Fine. I didn't notice your message declaring this was a closed topic. I had mistakenly thought that working through the implications was the purpose of having a discussion. --Shel
Received on Saturday, 7 October 1995 17:46:21 UTC