I agree with dforster, I think.
A proxy detected by WPAD is simply "transparently detected".
It is still not a transparent proxy.
WPAD does say anything about the behavior of the proxy
that you detect when you actually use it.
Typically, it will be a browser-aware, but semantically transparent one.
(if it was network transparent, you wouldnt need to use WPAD)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dforster@cisco.com [mailto:dforster@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 11:09 AM
> To: ian@mirror-image.com; Josh Cohen (Exchange)
> Cc: 'John Dilley'; Henrik Nordstrom; Ingrid Melve; wrec@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxonomy draft, draft-melve-wrec-taxonomy-00.txt
>
>
> Ian,
>
> I don't quite see the difference between the WPAD case you
> cite and the
> case where the
> IS Department pre-configures my browser with a PAC URL. It
> seems to me that
> in both cases the existence of the proxy is similarly unknown to the
> content-consumer (and upper layers of the browser). In both
> cases it is
> possible (I assume this is true for a WPAD-enabled browser?)
> to determine
> the use of a proxy if one takes the trouble. In summary I'm
> not convinced
> that auto-discovery introduces "transparency".
>
> Dave
>
> At 17:06 23/06/99 GMT, Ian Cooper wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:29:11 -0700, Josh Cohen (Exchange) wrote:
> >
> >>in the HTTP draft, the term "transparent", I beleive,
> >>is meaning "semantically transparent".
> >>In cache parlance, "transparent" seems to mean
> >>"network transparent".. we should probably come up
> >>with a good word for the wrec version of transparent
> >
> >Do we really mean (in our own language) that transparent means
> >*network* transparent, or do we mean content consumer transparent?
> >
> >Consider a WPAD enabled environment: the content consumer or
> >high-level parts of the client are unaware of the existence of the
> >proxy (so long as the proxy is semantically transparent) and yet no
> >clever trickery is going on.
> >
> >I agree that we use the terminology differently to HTTP[0], but in
> >understanding our own definition of a "transparent proxy" we must
> >understand what we mean by "transparent" in the first place.
> >
> >So, does anyone disagree that a proxy that is used by the
> >configuration through WPAD is "transparent"?
> >
> >
> >The current draft talks of "transparent proxy_ing_" - which
> might help
> >differentiate between the HTTP definition. However, that difference
> >is at the expense of playing word games in English, and I'm not keen
> >to do that (which is why I want to try and get this sorted).
> >
> >It seems that, as a community, we are saying that our definition of a
> >transparent proxy is one that is fed (by whatever method) by
> some form
> >of traffic interception. If we take a more generalized
> approach, that
> >means a transparent proxy is simply one whose presence is unknown to
> >the content consumer. Yes? No?
> >
> >
> >[0] In cache-speak a transparent proxy is going to have to do some
> >special stuff to be semantically transparent. So perhaps it is
> >appropriate to annotate the HTTP definition with a bit more
> >clarification[1].
> >
> >[1] I _think_ I've managed to work out the fundamental
> difference. In
> >the HTTP spec. "transparent proxy" is a verb-noun phrase. In our own
> >language "transparent proxy" is a noun. If I'm right on that then
> >does this help our understanding any further?
> >
> >
> >Ian (again requesting comments on the draft in general)
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST