> Assuming the IETF process works (which in general, I think it does)
> why on earth would the IETF force something into a
> proprietary-but-published track such as Informational when the parties
> involved are willing to honestly make it an open standard?
No decision has been made on eventual standardization of wpad.
If wpad is ever going to be standardized, this is likely to happen
through the wrec group. However the wrec group currently has a
very limited charter, for a number of good reasons. To attempt
to standardize wpad at this time would require a change in wrec's
charter, and that's not going to happen right now.
The whole subject of web caching, particularly "automatic" web
caching, is very controversial. Folks should not take it as a
given that IETF will agree to endorse the practice, merely because
some vendors have decided to support it in their products. And
in general it seems more desirable to develop technical solutions
which at once serve a balance of interests between content-provider
and consumer, than to immediately endorse cache-only solutions.
Keith
>
> I would further add that the IETF has (and is) standardized a system
> of web caching with HTTP/1.1 and provided no bootstrap method of using
> it. The lack of that element in the design has directly lead to
> implementations using IP spoofing and hijacking that I have no problem
> characterizing as questionable. now I don't blame the http-wg for that
> oversight (heck, I'm partly responsible for it through my
> participation there) but I certainly think it's essential that the
> IETF complete the picture and correct the problem.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST