Re: Preliminary minutes from the Design Team Meeting: WPAD and Proxy.pac

We're not setting limits, just trying to find concrete work items to embark upon.

Cheers,


On 13 Mar 2014, at 1:12 pm, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since proxy.pac tells you which hosts should be proxied and where the proxy can be found, it is about discovery, just like WPAD. There was general interest in the topic of discovery, including the possibility that in path interception is actually the best form of it. In general, describing the problems in the current discovery mechanisms should be part of the informational doc on proxies that was discussed as a next work item for the working group. It shouldn't be limited to WPAD or proxy.pac or whatever in my opinion.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 02:14:04 UTC