In a previous episode John Martin said...
:: Anyway, it seems that the whole list was actually in violent agreement
:: about what should be done with WPAD.
I don't really think that's true.. seems to me josh, I, and others felt
wpad would be appropriate for standards track and therefore
modification by the working group.. publishing as information appears
to be a compromise.. not agreement.
::
:: >but fine. for those of us hideously confused about what appear to be
:: >process arguments but really view this as appropriate work that they
:: >would like to help along, would you mind highlighting what objectives
:: >are at what stage?
::
:: The version you list is very old, I'm not sure where it came from.
As I said in the post. They came from the IETF charter page. To
elaborate: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wrec-charter.html which
carries the annotation "Last Modified: 24-Jun-99".
Is there some reason that I shouldn't consider that authoritative or current?
:: >Frankly the only purpose the things done so far (taxonomy document,
:: >etc) have so far is as background materials to specify things exactly
:: >like wpad and wccp and htcp and icp and other things like them... I'm
:: >not really convinced of their value on their own.
::
:: If you had been party to our discussion about the meaning of the word
:: 'transparent', you would, believe me.
::
ahem. draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-01.txt:
"10. Acknowledgements
[..] David Forster, Josh Cohen, Henrik Nordstrom and Patrick McManus
for their help in defining proxy transparency."
my comment still stands. A dictionary by itself doesn't help improve
the state of caching and replication systems. If we build new systems
using them as a reference basis, that's a different story.. and that's
where I see the value in them and why I spent and will continue to
spend my time with them.
-Patrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST