Re: HNL agenda

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hey,

I've added WPD explicitly to the agenda, so we can include it in the discussion.

Cheers,


> On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, DRUTA, DAN <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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:[e-mail]] 
> 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/
> 
> 

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