Re: Call for adoption: draft-rosomakho-httpbis-outdated-proxy-config-01 (Ends 2026-02-03)

+1 to adopt.

Compared to the benefits, this extension is so simple that it is hard
to argue against :-)

One change that I'd prefer seeing is the draft aligns its change
detection logic to that of Last-Modified.

I do not mind the fetch date being represented as an integer, but
would like to see the possibility of implementing the detection logic
inside the HTTP server using internal sub-requests at a minimal cost.

2026年1月21日(水) 8:52 Mark Nottingham via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>:
>
> This message starts a httpbis WG Call for Adoption of:
> draft-rosomakho-httpbis-outdated-proxy-config-01
>
> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-02-03
>
> Abstract:
>    This document defines a lightweight mechanism that allows explicit
>    HTTP proxies to inform clients when their proxy configuration, such
>    as a Proxy Auto-Configuration (PAC) file or Provisioning Domain (PvD)
>    proxy configuration, is outdated.  Clients signal to the proxy the
>    configuration URL and the timestamp of when it was last fetched.  In
>    response, the proxy may indicate that a newer version of the
>    configuration is available.  This enables clients to refresh their
>    configuration without relying on frequent polling or short expiration
>    intervals.  The mechanism is designed to be compatible with existing
>    proxy deployment models and supports both PAC-based and PvD-based
>    configurations.
>
> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support adoption
> of this Internet-Draft by the httpbis WG. Comments to explain your preference
> are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and
> include this message in your response.
>
> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2].
> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
> found at [3].
>
> Thank you.
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rosomakho-httpbis-outdated-proxy-config/
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rosomakho-httpbis-outdated-proxy-config-01.html
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-rosomakho-httpbis-outdated-proxy-config-01
>


-- 
Kazuho Oku

Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2026 07:17:49 UTC