Vernon,
At 04:47 PM 11/04/00 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Call me a non-team playing scab, but I refuse to the honor the old guild
work rule that limits the questions I can consider. If sourcing
other-owned etc. or anything else is an architectural or other problem,
then professional pride ought to force one to raise the issue insetad of
waiting for the AD, IESG, IAB, or a plenary to redirect things. But I
realize that's a minority view, and not just in IETF working groups or
even the IETF.
When WREC was originally proposed to the IESG, its scope was much
broader. Since the area was, at the time, the subject of much
confusion, our charter was changed by the IESG to begin with a taxonomy and
a list of known problems with caching and replication as is done today. At
the time, I disagreed but complied. With hindsight - and given recent
discussions - I think that their decision was correct. (If for no other
reason that we now know what to call these "interception proxy" things).
Most of us who started WREC have indeed an interest in caching and
replication but not necessarily "interceptions proxies". This type of proxy
is only one way to do caching / replication - and certainly by no means the
most common. (The most common - by far - are actually standard,
run-of-the-mill proxies configured explicitly in users' browsers).
Rgds,
John (WREC co-chair)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance Direct / Voicemail: +31 23 567 9615
Kruisweg 799 Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
---------------------------------------------------------------