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

Re: comparing eproxy proposals

From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:32:07 +0000
Message-ID: <52DAC8A7.9000201@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


On 01/18/2014 06:23 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 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.

And also whether or not proposals have impact beyond HTTP
and if so are they accompanied by a full analysis of that
impact.

S.

> 
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2014 18:32:30 UTC

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