>On whether or not to rename (network) transparent proxy I'd point to
>the abstract of the taxonomy:
>
>Abstract
>
> This memo specifies standard terminology and the current taxonomy
> of web replication and caching infrastructure deployed today. It
>
>which is basically to say we set out a series of X = Y
>statements.. The set of X's are not up to us to define beyond a
>diligent review of current practice.. they are the terms of the
>"current taxonomy of web replication and caching infrastructure
>deployed today".. The terms people use are not always those that we'd
>like for them to use.. but not documenting them makes this document
>essentially a censored dictionary.. put your head in the sand and
>pretend it doesn't exist. as for the Y's we have a lot of discretion
>and should use it wisely.
Now this is why the IETF traditionally prevents informational documents
from using the word "standard" even when they don't talk about a protocol.
What the abstract says to me is that the specification defines a
consistent
set of terminology that will be used by future specifications. What the
abstract should really say is:
This memo describes frequently used terminology within the
Web replication and caching industry.
And under such terms as "transparent proxy" and "reverse proxy"
it should say that these things are not necessarily transparent
and never proxies.
I have no doubt that people can find any number of marketing plans
and proto-specs that use these terms frequently. After all, they
are written by the same people and companies that are represented
within WREC. The problem is that those terms conflict with their
definitions within standards-track protocols, and the terminology
within those protocols is intended to be self-consistent and
unambiguous and not subject to the whims of marketing departments.
This document, OTOH, is adding inconsistency and ambiguity to existing
terms just because some people use them in inconsistent and ambiguous
ways. That's okay for casual conversations, but not for protocol specs.
There's not much I can do about the charter, but I would have
preferred a consistent terminology over documenting practice.
Given the state of the caching industry, any new terms created
here could entirely replace usage in industry within six months.
...........................................................
Roy T. Fielding, Chief Scientist fielding@ebuilt.com
eBuilt, Inc. tel:+1.949.609.0000
9401 Jeronimo Rd., Suite 100 fax:+1.949.609.0001
Irvine, CA 92618 USA http://www.eBuilt.com
...........................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST