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

Re: comparing eproxy proposals

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:23:22 +0000
To: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2184.1390069402@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CANmPAYFm=Vm-L=smSU8XVN6N4fjWWYr=Y0u+Bkg4ryWopZvUbA@mail.gmail.com>
, Peter Lepeska writes:

>Now to see which goals are met by each proposal...
>6.2.  Goals

I'd suggest we also look at how the proposed schemes handle when
there are multiple proxies in the path between the client and server.

Some of the schemes, #4 for instance, fails that criteria.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2014 18:23:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC