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: Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:16:45 +0000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <BCD2FE51-4DB6-4723-A08C-7C26EA5A711F@tid.es>

On 15 Jun 2014, at 22:03 , Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 20:58:52 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Do people support adopting this as a WG Draft (with a target of Informational)? If not, please explain why.
>
> I approve of this, and when Julian and I spoke in New York I promised to support him with any information he needs from me.

I support this.

And I miss in the list the draft on trusted proxies proposed by Salvatore. While it is probably not mature enough for WG adoption, I think it is worth continue discussion on it.

>> ## Autoproxy.pac format
>>
>> There was also significant interest in standardising the autoproxy.pac format, possibly extending or refining it along the way. However, we haven’t seen any drafts or discussion of that. Is anyone planning to propose something here?
>
> Richard Wheeldon and I discussed different methods to try to find out what the current use cases are, scanning existing autoproxy.pac files and looking over the code for the sandbox they are executed in. I would say that other aspects of proxies have higher priority, at least for me right now. On the other hand I fear that this will always be the case for everyone, which is probably why autoproxy.pac has such an open API right now.

I exchanged some ideas on using JSON as the format for standardized PAC provision, that could be interesting as well for cases related with content delivery. But we certainly need here some degree of consensus from the browser makers.

>> ## 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 it’s likely to block what we do. Is anyone aware of a place where that is happening (W3C seems like an obvious possibility, but I haven’t heard anything from them)?
>
> UX for what? We did have UX resources working on the explicit authenticated proxy prototype, but that is just one use case, that even might end up not being relevant for anyone.

I agree: It is hard to imagine how to make UX issues a matter for IETF...


Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego@tid.es
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
-----------------------------------------


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2014 22:16:50 UTC

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