Re: [ogpx] user agents vs client apps
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Sun, 07 March 2010 00:44 UTC
Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1234D28C208 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:44:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.33
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X02OnV0I3gkx for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from viefep16-int.chello.at (viefep16-int.chello.at [62.179.121.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFBD28C0DE for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:44:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from edge01.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.236]) by viefep16-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.00 201-2260-120-20100118) with ESMTP id <20100307004440.WHNU20920.viefep16-int.chello.at@edge01.upcmail.net>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 01:44:40 +0100
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge01.upcmail.net with edge id q0kf1d00Z0FlQed010kgxc; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:44:40 +0100
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1No4bm-00074c-TL; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:44:38 +0100
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:44:38 +0100
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Katherine Mancuso <kmancuso@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100307004438.GB26690@alinoe.com>
References: <adae2d8e1003061457y162536a3y56da190137a423c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <adae2d8e1003061457y162536a3y56da190137a423c@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=J6YNqptb2LTyhoNIOEMVRmaNY6H224BMJtlPIRlxoIU= c=1 sm=0 a=w1wEbUXu5DgA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=5UnqVwiUggizrHrvOYcA:9 a=OnQfmU927H5_fceo6kTcxdcozB8A:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=3-JPCxZn_ZjnPUhN:21 a=EcDbsv7zZUrMJnD0:21 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] user agents vs client apps
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:44:40 -0000
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 05:57:13PM -0500, Katherine Mancuso wrote: > I would be curious to have citations for user agent in the IETF > literature so we can establish how the term is used for other > protocols. I know that SIP refers to both its endpoints as user > agents. Anyone? Perhaps the 'user' in 'user agent' refers to the trust model. So, a user agent would be a program under the control of John Joe, while a server is usually an application run by a company, or administrator with responsibility. In that light I can understand why 'user agent' would be broader than the term 'client application' or visa versa: a user application that also allows others to connect to it is also a server. While a client application can in theory also be a service running on a secure company network. -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
- [ogpx] user agents vs client apps Katherine Mancuso
- Re: [ogpx] user agents vs client apps Carlo Wood
- Re: [ogpx] user agents vs client apps SM