Dave Kristol: > >At 9:34 PM +0200 7/8/97, Koen Holtman wrote: >> [...] >>I don't want proxies to be `creative'. I think that HTTP/1.x should >>not allow creative proxies, and am against weakening MUSTs to allow >>such creativity. >> >>If you want a new creative service in a proxy, call it a HTTP/1.1 >>proxy which implements the `creative-authentication-rewrite' protocol >>extension on top of HTTP/1.1. The use of creative extensions can be >>negotiated either in-band or out-of-band. > >This semantic fussing seems to get us nowhere. Is an "HTTP/1.1 proxy that >implements custom feature X" an HTTP/1.1 proxy or not? Your first >paragraph says "no"; your second implies "yes". No, it is not a HTTP/1.1 proxy. Yes, it is a HTTP/1.1 proxy with a protocol extension. I don't see what is so difficult about it. I have no problems with people putting creative protocol extensions which violate a MUST in HTTP/1.1 in their proxies. I would only have problems if people would go around distributing, or making available, these proxies as being fully HTTP/1.1 conformant, without telling anybody about the extra `special stuff'. We need to draw a firm line between `plain' and `extented', else there will be all kinds of trouble when cascaded proxy networks which span multiple organisations are going to be built. >Dave Kristol Koen.Received on Wednesday, 9 July 1997 11:28:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:02 UTC