> From: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@hem.passagen.se>
> To: mcmanus@appliedtheory.com
> CC: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>, wrec@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-03a.txt
>
> Patrick McManus wrote:
>
> > which leaves us with configuration-free for clients.
>
> I second that. Invisibility at the application level belongs to
> semantically transparent and classes thereof (i.e. semantically
> transparent NTP). It is not a distinguished property of an NTP.
>
> An NTP can technically be as non-transparent at the application level as
> any non-NTP proxy: rewrite requests, language translation, recode
> images, adding banners or whatever.
>
> > client, I concur.. but proxy? At a minimum an origin server style
> > request needs to be translated into a proxy style request..
>
> A proxy is a HTTP client when forwarding the request. Not all proxy
> software fully supports chained proxying.
>
> > In any event I had suggested "The use of this type of proxy requires
> > no configuration either by the user or the client." How about "The use
> > of this type of proxy requires no configuration by the client." Where
> > 'client' is defined in 2.1 as "a program that establishes connections
> > for the purposes of sending requests." It doesn't say anything about
> > the rest of any sytem elements that may share a platform with the
> > client.
>
> If you make that "client application" then I think it will be clear to
> everyone what is intended, even if they happen to think that "client"
> also involves the network layer of the station where the client
> application runs,
Then we're back to defining 'application' as before :-)
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST