Re: [Int-area] New version: draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd-02

[Josh Cohen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tommy, Dragana,



As I'm getting  my head wrapped around this proposal, is it fair to view it
as a metadata endpoint for a proxy server?  Sort of like a richer OPTIONS
that doesn’t get forwarded by the proxy?



WRT Split DNS:



> When present in a PvD Additional Information dictionary that is retrieved
for a proxy as described in Section 2
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd-02.html#proxy-pvd>,
domains in

> the dnsZones array indicate specific zones that are accessible using the
proxy. If a hostname is not included in the

> enumerated zones, then a client SHOULD assume that the hostname will not
be accessible through the proxy.



This is great.   It is an "inclusion" set, but what about an "exclusion"
set?   Eg  "use me for everything on the web, except the following internal
domains"



This will be essential for situations where PVD is used as a replacement
for the JavaScript PAC file, that is discovered through WPAD(NG) or
elsewhere.



With the increasing deployment of IoT devices, they will eventually find
themselves needing to use a proxy server, especially if they are inside an
enterprise.



Microcontrollers such as Arduino class devices, ESP32 etc, are powerful
enough to act as web clients and servers.  However, running a JS engine to
parse the PAC file may require space and computing power that dwarfs that
for the device functionality itself.  Eg "I am just a temperature sensor!
Why do I need a JS engine?"



On the other hand, there are a plethora of Arduino libraries to parse JSON.



WPAD OG was designed 20 years ago in Web dinosaur times. We now have an
opportunity to have IoT and other devices start off with a more modern,
efficient and secure format, which hopefully will last us the next 20 years.


Thoughts?

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 9:36 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello INTAREA,
>
> At IETF 118, we presented our draft on discovering proxies with PvD
> information files. We got good support for working on this, along with some
> feedback for how to improve the format to support more details for the
> proxies, and more explicit indications of proxy protocols.
>
> We’ve just published draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd-02 to
> incorporate this feedback:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd/
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd-02.html
>
> We’d like to continue discussing this at the upcoming IETF 119 meeting,
> and welcome any comments on list!
>
> Best,
> Tommy
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>


-- 

---
*Josh Co*hen