- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 05:29:28 +0200
- To: Rory Hewitt <rory.hewitt@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 05:23:32PM -0700, Rory Hewitt wrote: > ...and yet, to literally millions of people who are somewhat involved in > the technical side of "the Internet", the words "downstream" and "upstream" > are STILL commonly taken to mean "to the client" and "to the server". I > think everyone on this list understands that. FWIW I personally don't fully agree. I'm fine with this when speaking about the response, not the request. For me "upstream" means "where it comes from" and "downastream" means " where it goes". I guess that most users see it like this when considering their view as a client retrieving an object. But when it comes to HTTP messages, specifically requests, for me "upstream" is the side which sends the request and "downstream" is the side I'm forwarding it to. I've even found in the haproxy doc a paragraph saying that the logged accept date should match the one found in an upstream firewall which passed the request. But yes, speaking of caches (which mostly focus on caching contents), "upstream" and "downstream" intuitively focus on the response flow and are used as you described. Overall, I'd use these terms with caution depending on the context. Just my two cents, Willy
Received on Friday, 17 October 2025 03:29:34 UTC