Re: Moving forward with HTTP/2.0: proposed charter

On 8/9/12 6:22 AM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Amos Jeffries"<squid3@treenet.co.nz>
> To:"ietf-http-wg@w3.org"  <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 9/08/2012 2:59:54 p.m.
> Subject: Re: Moving forward with HTTP/2.0: proposed charter
>> >On 09.08.2012 10:19, David Morris wrote:
>>> >>On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >>>* define a 2.0 mechanism for advising clients of the proxy to use
>>> >>
>> >
>> >+1.
> +1
>> >
>> >
>>> >>I see this as a system configuration issue and not really a problem
>>> >>to be solved by the HTTP working group. It is very much a chicken/egg
>>> >>problem.
>>> >>
>>> >>Beyond that, this problem is nearly solved for iPhones with the
>>> >>provision
>>> >>for defining a proxy in APNs. VPN mobile configs also provide for
>>> >>definition of a proxy. I don't know other devices, but APNs look
>>> >>like they might be a general solution which transcend the iPhone.


I concur that Mobile telecom networks have to provide a standard way for 
advising clients
of the proxy to use i.e. in APNs or during DHCP lookup

perhaps the wg should liaise with e.g. 3GPP  on this issue .


Having said that,
I do think the wg should also work (in its 2.0 effort)
on a standard mechanism to easily discover and setup an explicit proxy


/Sal


>> >
>> >
>> >Right now we have the usual industry-driven mess of a half dozen *not
>> >quite working* semi-proprietary methods. Admin wanting to setup an
>> >explicit proxy have to implement most of them. Client developers
>> >wanting to add proxy support have to implement most of them - just in
>> >case. And few people can really be bothered with that much work.
>> >
>> >The APN method you point at being specific to iPhones makes it yet
>> >another vendor-specific variant to implement alongside UNIX
>> >"http_proxy" environment setting, Windows Group Policy proxy settings,
>> >WPAD DHCP lookup, WPAD DNS lookup, manual editing of config settings
>> >for hundreds of apps per user machine ... "bugger it just MITM port 80
>> >and be done".
> there's also UPnP:)

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 06:51:41 UTC