Re: Proxy naming
Balint Nagy Endre (bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu)
Wed, 4 Oct 1995 08:06:32 +0100 (MET)
Paul Leach writes [in reply to Ari Luotonen]:
> I think the major difference between these two kinds of proxies is that
> one is transparent, and the other isn't. For example, what you call a
> "server proxy" looks like a server to the client, and like a client to
> the server. Hence I find the proposed names confusing.
I propose the simple transparent proxy instead. (and non-transparent).
This needs no change in draft, but only in WGs terminology.
> The ability to transparently interpose agents is an important design
> criterion for a protocol... in the current versions of HTTP, it can not
> be done in general.
>
> One small step in this direction would be to allow full URLs in
> requests to origin servers in HTTP 1.1. (In HTTP 1.0 and the current
> HTTP 1.1 draft, they are only allowed in requests to proxies.) (The
> use of Host: may already meet this requirement... if so, maybe this
> suggested change might end up in deprecated usage.)
Good idea, but requires a lot of discussion for 1.0-1.1 interoperatibility.
(That discussion would be useful without this proposal.)
Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>