- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:54:06 +1100
- To: emile.stephan@orange.com
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Emile, On 11 Mar 2014, at 4:34 am, emile.stephan@orange.com wrote: > Hi Mark, > > The draft of the minutes says: > >> Discovery is hard. We encourage interception proxies through inaction. Not much interest in standardising WPAD (security concerns, deployment concerns), but strong interest in proxy.pac from implementers, due to considerable pain. Would be interested in clarifying the current format and normalising behaviour as much as possible, and potentially in extending / replacing the format. E.g., IPv6, secure proxy. >> > I had the feeling there was the same interest in refurbishing both of them. If by "both of them", you mean both proxy.pac and WPAD -- we had a discussion explicitly about WPAD, and many, many people expressed concern about security issues with the protocol; furthermore, there was very little interest in pursuing it, to my recollection. OTOH there was strong interest in proxy.pac. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 00:54:33 UTC