> From: ian@mirror-image.com (Ian Cooper)
> To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
> Cc: wrec@cs.utk.edu, mcmanus@appliedtheory.com
> Subject: Re: Taxonomy draft, draft-melve-wrec-taxonomy-00.txt
> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:26:04 GMT
>
> No revision this time - I should have time later tonight or first
> thing UK time tomorrow to get a "final" version out. Here are some
> comments which might make my life easier (or harder, depending on any
> ensuing discussions).
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:42:42 -0700 (PDT), Joe Touch wrote:
...
> >This is confusing - it appears to intend to exclude caching as part
> >of tunneling for a particular transaction; it could be interpreted
> >as "proxy caches are not allowed to tunnel traffic", even for
> >separate requests. Is that also intended?
...
> Those definitions were originally taken from RFC2068 (I updated
> "proxy" today, but need to check the status of the others against
> RFC2616). I tend to agree with you, but that means we're fast heading
> away from the definitions in HTTP. Any suggestions as to how to
> resolve those differences? Should we simply indicate that industry
> use is different from the prior definitions? (And is that going to
> create any problems for the group?)
I would clearly note that, since caching works at levels below
HTTP, some of these definitions will deviate from those in 2616.
> Why couldn't you have made some of these comments earlier Joe!? :)
Lack of time. Honestly, I apologize for just catching up :-)
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST