- From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:02:06 +0000
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, henrysa@exchange.microsoft.com
Jim Gettys wrote: > > Given the heat that this generated at Munich, I'd appreciate it > if others read Josh's mail, and proposed change to close out the issue. > Henry, do you agree? > > > "Proxy servers MUST upgrade all requests to the highest > > version supported by the proxy" > > I also wonder if "Proxy servers" is correct... Should it be > "Caching proxy servers", to deal with the case of a transparent firewall > proxy? Caching (was that the agreed spelling <duck>?) doesn't quite capture it. The only thing I can think of, but it is horribly unweildy, is: "non-transparent proxies that operate at the HTTP layer". Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Received on Monday, 17 November 1997 15:04:50 UTC