Subject: Re: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-03a.txt

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:47:13 -0800 (PST)

> From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-03a.txt
> 
> Patrick McManus wrote:
> 
> > which leaves us with configuration-free for clients.
> 
> I second that. Invisibility at the application level belongs to
> semantically transparent and classes thereof (i.e. semantically
> transparent NTP). It is not a distinguished property of an NTP.
> 
> An NTP can technically be as non-transparent at the application level as
> any non-NTP proxy: rewrite requests, language translation, recode
> images, adding banners or whatever.
> 
> > client, I concur.. but proxy? At a minimum an origin server style
> > request needs to be translated into a proxy style request..
> 
> A proxy is a HTTP client when forwarding the request. Not all proxy
> software fully supports chained proxying.
> 
> > In any event I had suggested "The use of this type of proxy requires
> > no configuration either by the user or the client." How about "The use
> > of this type of proxy requires no configuration by the client." Where
> > 'client' is defined in 2.1 as "a program that establishes connections
> > for the purposes of sending requests." It doesn't say anything about
> > the rest of any sytem elements that may share a platform with the
> > client.
> 
> If you make that "client application" then I think it will be clear to
> everyone what is intended, even if they happen to think that "client"
> also involves the network layer of the station where the client
> application runs,

Then we're back to defining 'application' as before :-)

Joe

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:06:49 +0100

> Then we're back to defining 'application' as before :-)

I'd say definition of 'application' is a non-issue.

Is there anyone who can find a ambiguous interpretation of "client
application" the context (and audience) of wrec-taxonomy?

As you said before, it can be expected that the audience of
wrec-taxonomy has some basic knowledge of the terms used.

--
Henrik Nordstrom

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:42:40 -0500 (EST)

In a previous episode Henrik Nordstrom said...
:: 
:: Joe Touch wrote:
:: 
:: > Then we're back to defining 'application' as before :-)
:: 
:: I'd say definition of 'application' is a non-issue.
:: 

client application is alright by me.. simply application is not... I
actually don't like application at all. I tend to think of
applications as semantic things (i.e. a specific set of web pages
together with the origin server and user agent constitute a minimal
application).. whereas a client "establishes connections for the
purpose of sending requests"..

:: Is there anyone who can find a ambiguous interpretation of "client
:: application" the context (and audience) of wrec-taxonomy?

this misses the real issue.

The purpose of the taxonomy is to provide a well defined set of
terms.. I think our definition of 'client' is exactly what we
want.. If we won't use it, doesn't it make this whole exercise a
farce? (which some could argue anyhow..)

unless client as given in 2.1 doesn't mean what you want, I think it
should be used to reinforce its meaning. This is (imho) consistent
with Ingrid's request in DC that the NECP folks make sure the language
in the taxonomy is sufficient for NECP.. indeed we need to make sure
it's sufficient for the taxonomy to be internally consistent too.. I
can't think of any other value for a document like this.

Meanwhile, I'm off on holiday.. if it's thanksgiving in your part of
the world: enjoy it!

-P

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:16:20 +0100

> farce? (which some could argue anyhow..)

Good point.

--
Henrik Nordstrom