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@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:06:31 +0200
Message-ID: <53A44DF7.6010205@gmx.de>
To: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-06-15 22:03, Martin Nilsson 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.
> ...

One thing we have discussed already is that we should have some text 
that covers proxies that are essentially proprietary and hard-wired, and 
might not even talk proper HTTP. For instance, Google's Data Compression 
Proxy (using SPDY between UA and proxy), or Opera Turbo.

There's the deployment aspect (does this fall under "3.4 Configuration 
As Side Effect"?), and also the fact that the protocol spoken between UA 
and proxy might not even be HTTP (does this merit a new section somewhere?).

Finally, there are cases where part of the UA functionality is moved 
into the network, such as in Opera mini - do we consider that as 
"proxying" as well (methinks yes, because it shares most of the 
considerations of classical proxies).

*If* we want to adopt this as a WG document (which I support) then we 
have two weeks left to submit it as 00.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 15:08:53 UTC

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