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

[Josh Cohen <[e-mail]>]

Pull request created
https://github.com/tfpauly/privacy-proxy/pull/247


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:28 PM Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> Yes, the PvD file carries configuration metadata about a network access in
> general, and this extension allows it to carry proxy details. When asking a
> proxy server for its own PvD, that lets it tell you more about which proxy
> protocols it supports and their locations. When asking a network for its
> PvD, that can allow the network to indicate which proxies are associated
> with the network.
>
> With regards to the domain lists, totally agreed that adding exclusion
> sets would be good. That could be easily added as a key!
>
> Best,
> Tommy
>
> On Mar 5, 2024, at 10:23 AM, Josh Cohen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 

---
*Josh Co*hen