W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)

From: Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:26:47 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <100F96E9-C141-4070-9CF7-8A716D852ACC@tid.es>
Would not any proxy fall in this split UA category then? What differentiates a proxy from a split UA?

On 20 Jun 2014, at 11:59 , Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 June 2014 08:06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Finally, there are cases where part of the UA functionality is moved into
>> the network, such as in Opera mini - do we consider that as "proxying" as
>> well (methinks yes, because it shares most of the considerations of
>> classical proxies).
>
> I don't tend to think of this as a proxy at all.  Split UA is the term
> I've used casually with respect to Opera mini, Silk and others.
> Really, this is just a software deployment choice.
>


--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/


e-mail: diego@tid.es
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
-----------------------------------------


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 18:26:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC