Dear wrec(k)ers,
At 8:30 pm +0100 16/11/98, Ingrid Melve wrote:
>A revised proposal for charter will be circulated shortly.
Since nothing much charter-wise has gone past since Scott's initial draft,
I have produced a simpler version, trying to take comments into account
and, most importantly, trying to achieve rough consensus.
NOTE: There is obviously some contention over terminology and issues raised
as a result of the scope-type discussions, e.g. transparency, etc. However,
these are exactly the sort of issues I think the WG itself must resolve -
should we form one - and it wastes valuable time arguing about these
beforehand. In other words, I decided to make the charter less specific but
concentrate on concrete deliverables.
So, in short I am proposing that we use the BoF at the Orlando IETF to nail
down exactly what we want to achieve and we agree a charter for
presentation to the relevant ADs.
The timeline I have proposed is basically to produce the three documents
that Ingrid, Barry and others mentioned early-mid 1999 and get these into
the publication schedule of the IESG / RFC editor. For the follow-up I am
making an assumption that we do, in fact, decide to do work on developing
protocols for both client-proxy interaction and proxy-proxy interaction
though I make no assumption about whether these are completely new or
development / standardization of existing work.
Comments?
John
--Web REplication and Caching (WREC) ----------------------------------
Chair(s): t.b.d.
Applications Area Director(s):
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Patrik Faltstrom <paf@swip.net>
Applications Area Advisor:
t.b.d.
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: webrepl@cs.utk.edu To Subscribe: webrepl-request@cs.utk.edu Archive: t.b.d.
Description of Working Group:
The World Wide Web (WWW) employs the HTTP protocol (RFC 2068) between the client and server. HTTP makes allowances with respect to intermediate infrastructure which may exist between the client and servers, such as caching proxies, gateway proxies, and other "servers". Though highly desirable and possible in a few implementations, interaction between clients and these intermediaries is rarely automatic or optimal and often manually configured. There is currently no open, supported protocol for client configuration.
In many cases, these intermediaries are configured to communicate with other intermediaries, (so-called Inter-Cache Communication) and there exist many different protocols and standards, both proprietary and open, for communication between these intermediaries.
The aim of this working group is to review and document current practice with regards inter-cache communication and client-cache communication and define a framework for a future development of both within the IETF framework. The scope of this working group is deliberately limited to cache-type intermediaries.
Goals and Milestones:
Jan-99 Form Working Group Feb-99 First issue of I-D on Client-Proxy Communication (Informational) Feb-99 First issue of I-D on Inter-Cache Communication (Informational) Feb-99 First issue of I-D on Operational Requirements for Proxy-Caches Mar-99 Meet at Minneapolis IETF Apr-99 Final issue of I-D on Client-Proxy Communication Apr-99 Final issue of I-D on Inter-Cache Communication Apr-99 Final issue of I-D on Operational Requirements for Proxy-Caches Jul-99 Submit documents (3) to IESG for publication as RFCs. Jul-99 First issue of I-D on Inter-Cache Communication (Protocol Development) Jul-99 First issue of I-D on Client-Proxy Communication (Protocol Development) Aug-99 Meet at Oslo IETF Oct-99 Second issue of I-D on Inter-Cache Communication (Protocol Development) Oct-99 Second issue of I-D on Client-Proxy Communication (Protocol Development) Nov-99 Meet at Washington IETF
Internet-Drafts:
None yet.
Request For Comments:
None yet.
--end
-- "The Challenge of Gigabit Networking" The TERENA-NORDUnet Networking Conference 1999 7-10 June 1999 Lund, Sweden
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:25 MST