WREC,
There has been a recent discussion among various members of the IESG and
IAB with regards elements within the taxonomy document, specifically the
usage and definition of the word "transparency". I have asked those who
feel strongly to consult the WREC archives and to continue their discussion
here. Rather than attempt to summarize their conflicting opinions, I will
paste a few comments below, without attribution. If you reach the end, you
will notice that a compromise suggestion "interception proxies" was at
least partially accepted but I would like to see it discussed here also.
Rgds,
John
--I have tried to keep them in order, separated by ***:
>p.s. "Transparent proxy" is indeed common usage. It is also a >barefaced lie. I have strongly objected to the NAT proponents' attempts >to characterize NATs as transparent (since they break things right and >left) and I will also strongly object to any attempt to legitimize >the term "transparent web proxy".
***
>As for the terminology battle, the use of the term "transparent" for proxies >of one type or another was, I thought, covered in the taxonomy doc in our WG.
***
>the biggest problem with the use of the term "transparent proxy" as defined >in the terminology document is that it's too likely to be confused with other >uses of "transparent proxy". even "network transparent proxy" is still a >misnomer. > >I think it would be more appropriate to avoid use of the term "transparent" >for a proxy that doesn't modify the request, since "transparent" is so >widely used to mean a proxy that surreptiously intercepts traffic which is >intended for the origin server. were it not for the widespread misuse, >"transparent" would be a good word for this case.
***
>And one shouldn't use "transparent" at all to refer to the kind of proxy >that intercepts traffic not intended for it, except to the limited extent >necessary to acknowledge the widespread misuse of the term. Words like >"fradulent", "misdirecting", "plagiarizing", and "hijacking" >all seem more appropriate.
***
>I understand that the WG spent a lot of time on the document. I still >feel that its use of the term "transparent proxy" is inappropriate because >the term is so widely misused elsewhere that it has an accepted meaning >which is different than the one that WREC wants to use.
***
>I disagree with X on this - "transparent proxy" is a well known term >of the art - one may disagree with the level of transparency but >just about anyone in the networking business knows what you are talking >about when you use that term - I think the use of any other term >would be confusing to most if not many readers - you could put it >in quotes when it is used and have a parententhetical comment >when the term is 1st used that notes the quite real issues that Keith >refers to but I find it hard to see that it would be a good idea >to use a different name for something when a well known name already >exists
***
>The problem is that the phrase is a marketing lie and an abuse of language. >The fact that it is in widsepread use makes it worse. I think the minimum >that's acceptable is text stating that so-called transparent proxies are >not transparent, because they change the packets that pass through them, >and all our documents should consistently use the phrase "so-called >transparent proxies".
***
>Agreed. Trying to change the accepted meaning of the term "transparent >proxy" is like trying to change back the meaning of "hacker". It would >have been nice if some other word were used in both cases, but language >is defined by usage, not purists.
***
>I'm not suggesting that we try to change the meaning of this term, but to >use another term which is less misleading and more accurately describes >the function of such devices.
***
>I can not see that it would be a good idea to use another term >"transparent proxy" is the term in use even if it is not what >we would like the term to be - to use anything else to name >the devices that network managers call "transparent proxies" >would not help the community understand what was being talked about
***
>I would like to find a better term than "so-called transparent proxies". >however, if no better term can be identified (and I haven't come up >with one yet), then "so-called transparent proxies" would be an improvement.
***
>Hidden proxies? Intermediary proxies? Interception proxies?
***
>Interception proxies seems to carry the spirit of what is going >on......nomination seconded by some people around here.
***
>"interception proxies" would be fine w/me.
***
>The whole term "transparent proxies" has been the most debated in WREC, >maybe we'll finally put it to rest. I suggest we keep the also known as >"transparent proxies" in the definition so that the general cache community >will know the definition change.
***
>I've found that adding a trailer like > >"Note: froobnitz is also known as bumblebar, but the term bumblebar is often >associated with the property of bumbleness, and also used about bumblebees. >The term "bumblebar" is therefore not used in this document" > >kinda works the way I want it.
--end --------------------------------------------------------------- Network Appliance Direct / Voicemail: +31 23 567 9615 Kruisweg 799 Fax: +31 23 567 9699 NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp Main Office: +31 23 567 9600 ---------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST