- 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
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