W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:14:52 +0200
Message-ID: <539B69CC.60109@greenbytes.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-13 20:58, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Sal,
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 4:28 pm, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> thanks to the productive meeting in NewYork we are almost done with HTTP/2,
>> this is really great.
>> As currently we have almost no issues open on HTTP2,
>> perhaps we can take the opportunity to spend some time during the IETF in Toronto
>> (in the case the wg decides to meet in Toronto) to start to talk more about proxies
>> and how to accommodate them in the new reality.
> Absolutely. Now that HTTP/1 has shipped and HTTP/2 is moving towards a more quiet phase, we can indeed turn to other things (with the understanding that thereís still work to do on HTTP/2 that will take priority when necessary).
>> during the last months there have been several drafts authored by several people
>> describing problems about proxies, listening requirements and some drafting possible solutions;
>> and also good discussions about proxies in this mailing list and during the non official day in London
>> so we should have already enough to discuss and maybe we might also make some good progress
>> at least on the draft describing the proxy problems.
> So far, the proxy-related work that seems to have some level of consensus to continue upon has been:
> ## HTTP Proxy Problems
> IIRC Julian volunteered to edit this if we choose to adopt it. Julian, is that still the case?

Yes, for holding the pen. But I'll need to rely on the proxy experts to 
provide input.

> Do people support adopting this as a WG Draft (with a target of Informational)? If not, please explain why.
> ## Autoproxy.pac format
> There was also significant interest in standardising the autoproxy.pac format, possibly extending or refining it along the way. However, we havenít seen any drafts or discussion of that. Is anyone planning to propose something here?

I think we should find out whether our browser friends (MS, Moz, Google, 
Opera) are interested in improving interop here. We also should mine the 
issue trackers for known issues.

> ## UX
> Another thing mentioned in the London DTM was the need for UX. We said there (and I still agree) that this is *not* the venue for that discussion, but it needs to happen somewhere, and itís likely to block what we do. Is anyone aware of a place where that is happening (W3C seems like an obvious possibility, but I havenít heard anything from them)?

W3C sounds right to me, but in the end what's relevant is *who* is 
participating, not *where*.
Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 21:15:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC