ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bypassing

2003-10-03 11:17:12

Alex Rousskov wrote:

We do not have to specify all classes or _any_ classes. I suggest that
we specify a URI-based interface (with a wildcard) and specify
appropriate defaults for implementations that do not understand the
meaning of a given URI. Others may use our interface and specify URI
meanings.

That's fine, as long as we don't have pre-defined classes.

If a user requests non-blocking, OPES processor needs to determine
whether a "non-OPES" version is available. If yes, this version will
have to be served. If not, either an error is returned or the OPES
version is served.


Agreed.

I actually start believeing that an error should be returned in the latter case...

Couldn't we go that far and say that requests with non-blocking flag
are always being forwarded to the origin server.


Not in general. (a) A request may need to be modified for non-OPES
content to be served by the OPES-unaware server (e.g., a particular
header or parameter may need to be added by an OPES processor).

Agreed, good point.

Now, when an error comes back (because there's no non-OPES version),
we could either leave it to the user to remove the non-blocking flag
(if wanted), or invoke the OPES service and serve the OPES version.


A user usually does not have control over low-level information such
as HTTP headers. The bypass has to be implemented entirely within the
OPES system (or it is not a bypass).

First of all, someone needs to articulate the desire to bypass OPES, and this someone I would expect is the user. And I would assume that this could be done, for example, similar to the "hard reload" feature of Web browsers. When I hit CTRL-F% in my IE, it adds an "no-cache" header to the outgoing HTTTP request.

-Markus


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>