On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:02:50PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Oh, there is definitely room for additional requirements and protocol
> extensions for managed cache control, and even for newer, more efficient
> standards for those OTHER protocols. What I was objecting to was the
> statement (in the taxonomy) which says the "requirements for surrogates
> have not been standardized." That statement is false for HTTP.
OK, that sounds like a good piece of common ground to start with. I'd agree
that the basic requirements within the framework of a gateway are valid and
applicable to a surrogate.
I've noted both problems with current implementations (mostly caused by
misuse of proxy software, but also a few brought about by ambiguity in the
protocol) and opportunities for making a surrogate more efficient; this is
the bulk of what I intend to present.
This has been very helpful in clarifing the issues; thanks.
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:28 MST