Re: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich....

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jim Gettys: "RE: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."
• Previous message: Jim Gettys: "RE: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Gettys: "RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."
• Next in thread: Foteos Macrides: "Re: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."

Jim Gettys wrote:
> 
> Given the heat that this generated at Munich, I'd appreciate it
> if others read Josh's mail, and proposed change to close out the issue.
> Henry, do you agree?
> 
> > "Proxy servers MUST upgrade all requests to the highest
> > version supported by the proxy"
> 
> I also wonder if "Proxy servers" is correct...  Should it be
> "Caching proxy servers", to deal with the case of a transparent firewall
> proxy?

Caching (was that the agreed spelling <duck>?) doesn't quite capture it.
The only thing I can think of, but it is horribly unweildy, is:
"non-transparent proxies that operate at the HTTP layer".

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

• Next message: Jim Gettys: "RE: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."
• Previous message: Jim Gettys: "RE: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Gettys: "RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."
• Next in thread: Foteos Macrides: "Re: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich...."