we've been through this ad nauseum and are pretty clear in the
taxonomy draft. If people are going to pursue the issue again, please
be certain you've read that.
Also, please note that my problem reports explicitly referred to
'network transparent proxies' not simply transparent proxies. This is
not a coincidence.
The whole value of that work is in building other things.. like the
known problems draft.
-P
In a previous episode Chuck Neerdaels said...
::
:: Maybe we should differentiate "transparent proxy" and "transparent
:: redirection to a proxy cache." Whether it's correct or not, when most people say
:: the first, they mean the latter.
::
:: chuck
::
:: Bertold Kolics wrote:
:: >
:: > Hi,
:: >
:: > I took a closer look at RFC2616. There one can read the following:
:: >
:: > 'A "transparent proxy" is a proxy that does not modify the request or
:: > response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and
:: > identification. [...] Except where either transparent or non-transparent
:: > behavior is explicitly stated, the HTTP proxy requirements apply to both
:: > types of proxies.'
:: >
:: > My question is: can we call a proxy transparent if it is unable to handle
:: > a request because it does not implement a method present in the request
:: > header?
:: >
:: > IMO, the transparent proxy has everything it has to know about a request:
:: > the port and IP address of the origin server. Nothing else is needed.
:: >
:: > Bertold
::
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST