On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 09:23:27 +0200 (MET DST), Bertold Kolics wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
>> Please read the taxonomy draft. There are multiple meanings of the word
>> transparent.
>
>Thanks. I have read it again. I think that rephrasing Patrick's suggestion
>is needed, because it seems to be confusing to me (maybe to others as
>well): there is *no definition* for "network transparent proxy" in the
>taxonomy draft.
The need for the additional clarification "*network* transparent
proxy" was discussed at IETF in Oslo. The comments are currently
being edited into the current draft before we send it out to the list
and resubmit.
>Furthermore - just as a side-note: I do not really like to have two
>definitions for transparency in RFC2616 and the taxonomy draft. I think -
>however - that it would be possible to provide a definition in the
>taxonomy draft that *IS* compliant with the definition found in RFC2616.
>It would be wise to have the same definition for "transparency", but other
>definiton for "out-of-path transparent caching proxy" could be added.
From what I remember, the general consensus is that we can't resolve
the differences between RFC2626 "transparency" and what we, the
caching community, have come to call a transparent cache.
In terms of defining transparency, I think that we've tried (and
failed) to define that single word, and have instead decided to
qualify the type(s) of transparency that are being discussed.
It would be nice (for closure) to be able to come up with a definition
of that single word "transparency", so if you've got any ideas, please
send them to the list and/or editors. It would be wise to make
yourself aware of the existing comments first (if you've not already
done this).
An archive of the mailing list and a copy of the minutes from Oslo are
at <URL:http://www.wrec.org/>.
Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST