--On Friday, December 7, 2001 16:10 -0800 Joseph Hui <jhui(_at_)digisle(_dot_)net>
wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Cooper [mailto:ian(_at_)the-coopers(_dot_)org]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:33 PM
To: Joseph Hui; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: Sally Floyd; Patrik Fältström; ned.freed-mrochek.com
Subject: RE: IAB document
[snip]
If implementors could argue their case that
use of multiple intermediaries
had the same overall effect as multiple proxylets on the same
intermediary then I think this would sufficiently demonstrate
that the recommendation had been addressed.
However contriving with proxylets, they still can't satisfy the
clause if the intermediaries, each being a one-trick pony,
run on different IP hosts (as I shown in my use cases).
But surely there's an implementation reason as to why each intermediary is
a "one-trick pony", in that it's easier to deploy it that way for some
reason?
I agree there's an issue with the strict wording of the text. What I said
above was an attempt to address the *intent* of that text for implementors.
From Sally's reply I think that's along the lines of how it was intended to
be interpreted. (I think you've identified a problem in the wording that
wasn't anticipated when it was written; that problem seems tangential to
what IAB was actually addressing when they made the recommendation.)