Subject: Re: definitions and use of "transparency" in the taxonomy

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:53:30 -0800

> > > BTW, the mail archive at <ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/wrec> has been
> > > inaccessible for weeks.
>
> > I don't know what the problem is; it works for me from my home net:.
>
> FWIW, just tried it from here as well -- I was able to FTP the entire 
archive
> with no trouble whatsoever.

Weird.  I get a "421 Service not available" from both MSIE and a normal
ftp client on Linux.  www.wrec.org works fine, so I can see the past now.

Hmmm, just tried it from my UCI account and got in fine.  Maybe it has
a security screen (like reverse DNS lookup) that doesn't like ebuilt.com.

Thanks for checking.

...........................................................
Roy T. Fielding, Chief Scientist        [email-masked]
eBuilt, Inc.                            tel:+1.949.609.0000
9401 Jeronimo Rd., Suite 100            fax:+1.949.609.0001
Irvine, CA 92618   USA                http://www.eBuilt.com
...........................................................

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:34:09 -0800

>On whether or not to rename (network) transparent proxy I'd point to
>the abstract of the taxonomy:
>
>Abstract
>
>   This memo specifies standard terminology and the current taxonomy
>   of web replication and caching infrastructure deployed today. It
>
>which is basically to say we set out a series of X = Y
>statements.. The set of X's are not up to us to define beyond a
>diligent review of current practice.. they are the terms of the
>"current taxonomy of web replication and caching infrastructure
>deployed today".. The terms people use are not always those that we'd
>like for them to use.. but not documenting them makes this document
>essentially a censored dictionary.. put your head in the sand and
>pretend it doesn't exist. as for the Y's we have a lot of discretion
>and should use it wisely.

Now this is why the IETF traditionally prevents informational documents
from using the word "standard" even when they don't talk about a protocol.
What the abstract says to me is that the specification defines a 
consistent
set of terminology that will be used by future specifications.  What the
abstract should really say is:

    This memo describes frequently used terminology within the
    Web replication and caching industry.

And under such terms as "transparent proxy" and "reverse proxy"
it should say that these things are not necessarily transparent
and never proxies.

I have no doubt that people can find any number of marketing plans
and proto-specs that use these terms frequently.  After all, they
are written by the same people and companies that are represented
within WREC.  The problem is that those terms conflict with their
definitions within standards-track protocols, and the terminology
within those protocols is intended to be self-consistent and
unambiguous and not subject to the whims of marketing departments.
This document, OTOH, is adding inconsistency and ambiguity to existing
terms just because some people use them in inconsistent and ambiguous
ways.  That's okay for casual conversations, but not for protocol specs.

There's not much I can do about the charter, but I would have
preferred a consistent terminology over documenting practice.
Given the state of the caching industry, any new terms created
here could entirely replace usage in industry within six months.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:10:10 -0800

>Exactly. Like it or not, this *is* the term in common use
>and *this is* how the vocabulary gets (re)defined.

It is fundamentally impossible for me to use these terms within
any protocol that requires consistency in requirements, which
pretty much covers anything I'd care to write for the IETF.
They are self-contradictory.

>The goal of the taxonomy draft was to document the current
>practice, not to impose new definitions or artificial terminology
>even if it seems more appropriate for a reason.

Was that the goal, or the task at hand?  It seems to me that the
fundamental goal is to produce a document that is useful for the
Internet community.  If the taxonomy produced cannot be used, then
it is better not to produce it at all and let the ugly terminology
be replaced as ephemera.

This is all very confusing to me.  A taxonomy is, by definition,
a classification in order to create a standard terminology.  And yet
this one is just supposed to document current practice?