Am I to presume by your statement that you are of the mind that the
time for considering whether vs. which has already come and gone? Is there
anyone on this list who thinks that?
From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 4:03 PM
To: Vernon Schryver
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU
Subject: Re: interception proxies
Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: John Martin <jmartin(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com>
> > There has been a lot of discussion about the problems
> > so-called "interception proxies". This discussion is
very much within the
> > charter of the WREC WG. In fact, we even have a current
draft whose sole
> > purpose is to document such problems.
> > The known problems draft is at:
> > This is the first of two very useful documents being
produced by WREC; the
> > first, a taxonomy of terminology is available as:
> > draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-03.txt; I would suggest you
read this first.
> The problems draft is interesting and depressing. All of
> listed are technical nits.
This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing
addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural
needs to come down from above, rather than up from WREC. f
> I don't know whether to be depressed, encouraged, or
neutral that WREC
> seems to not be about port 25 traffic redirection and
> such as AOL's effort. That there is no mention of the
problems that IP
> fragmentation can cause interception proxies is
The problems of IP fragmentation are not unique to web
replication proxies. They affect all interception proxies.
The issue of
inteception proxies was around long before WREC, and is more
than just a
caching or replication issue.
> Joining that mailing list would not be useful, prudent, or
> people with sentiments like mine. Moving the question of
the wisdom of
> such proxies to WREC would be equivalent to moving the
question of the
> wisdom of wiretapping to the wiretapping working group.
At best the group
> WG consensus can be predicted. At worst, the discussion
> be considered disruptive and irrelevant.
WREC is about proxies - there are plenty of 'architecturally
ways to do proxies. If the problems with transparent proxies
issue, WREC may be a good place (but not the only place) to
> It appears that the WREC working group is doing exactly as
> lamented a day or two ago about working groups in general,
> considering the question of whether the mechanisms they
are working are
> good ideas in the larger scheme of things. WREC is only
> making them as good as possible. (Yes, I checked recent
months of the
> archives at ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/wrec/)
That's the property of WGs in general, by construction.
sometimes get addressed in BOFs, but there is also often too
momentum or political interest in establishing a
presence' in an area. By the time a WG is formed, the time
has often passed in favor of 'which'.