IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: HNL agenda

"DRUTA, DAN" <dd5826@att.com> Tue, 04 November 2014 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74EE1ACC8D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:47:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QRrrKYaYYWhB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6DDC1ACCC7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XliA6-0007fZ-L2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:44:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:44:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XliA6-0007fZ-L2@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <dd5826@att.com>) id 1Xli9x-0007el-8a for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:44:49 +0000
Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com ([209.65.160.92]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <dd5826@att.com>) id 1Xli9v-0004x3-4F for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:44:49 +0000
Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) with ESMTP id f8019545.2b6d9c853940.1562137.00-2450.4372806.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from <dd5826@att.com>); Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:44:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5459108f4c688da6-8d24735c90364ba439c1ee9548efaede1315a7d6
Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 96019545.0.1562071.00-2304.4371759.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from <dd5826@att.com>); Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:44:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5459106a2076bb94-ecc40cca879b6eeeff5f705e1f2dfca9a54ee201
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA4Hi8KY008828; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:44:09 -0800
Received: from flpi489.ffdc.sbc.com (flpi489.ffdc.sbc.com [130.4.162.183]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA4Hi6rL008819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:44:07 -0800
Received: from CAFRFD1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (CAFRFD1MSGHUBAB.itservices.sbc.com [130.4.169.165]) by flpi489.ffdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:43:52 GMT
Received: from CAFRFD1MSGUSRIA.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.1.149]) by CAFRFD1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.4.169.165]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:43:52 -0800
From: "DRUTA, DAN" <dd5826@att.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: HNL agenda
Thread-Index: AQHP7n2YhNVeOT//Lk2McYDB+uUrCZxQ0a4Q
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:43:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4AA3A95D6033ED488F8AE4E45F47448743D1FBE3@CAFRFD1MSGUSRIA.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <B183D497-9098-4DBF-9BE6-A7FCEAE5EAEF@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B183D497-9098-4DBF-9BE6-A7FCEAE5EAEF@mnot.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [141.204.179.152]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Yq+4sfkX c=1 sm=1 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=jMpPZUeveEAA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP]
X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=wvn1p7I7AA]
X-AnalysisOut: [AA:8 a=NEAV23lmAAAA:8 a=UU4TFG-8CBxxIzQYgzwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8]
X-AnalysisOut: [ugA:10 a=75RDhHi8oLkFoHBx:21 a=Pt9qMAFvL2eijx7v:21]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <dd5826@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153]
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.65.160.92; envelope-from=dd5826@att.com; helo=nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Xli9v-0004x3-4F 466e963bd4b8c7930c9e2163a0e91d14
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: HNL agenda
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4AA3A95D6033ED488F8AE4E45F47448743D1FBE3@CAFRFD1MSGUSRIA.ITServices.sbc.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27854
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email