RE: HNL agenda

Hi Mark,

Looking at the last emails related to the proxy topic and at the Wednesday agenda, I would like to propose a few minor changes in order to structure the discussion.

It appears to me that the first two drafts listed in the agenda are recommending some enhancements to the Web Proxy Description Format draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-web-proxy-desc-00) so it would make sense to have a brief review of the WPD draft first since it got people's attention and interest.

We can review the two proposals as it is the plan on the agenda:
1.  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-loreto-wpd-usage - deals mostly with some recommendations about the configuration and the WPD format
2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chow-httpbis-proxy-discovery - deals with recommendations about discovery

We can conclude the discussion with a summary and I'm hoping that there will be enough data to determine if the group wants to adopt WPD as a working group draft.

The last item on the Wednesday agenda (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-objsec ), while related to proxies is not directly associated with the previous discussion on WPD. It is mostly informative and it has a broader scope regarding intermediaries.

Thanks,
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53 PM
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: HNL agenda

I've roughed in some agenda items for IETF91 here:
  https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf91/agenda.md

Comments, suggestions welcome as always.

Cheers,


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

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 17:44:49 UTC