|Date:||Tuesday, March 27 2012, 1710-1810|
|Chairs:||Adam Roach, Paul Kyzivat|
Mechanism to indicate proxy capabilities is now a chartered item.
Since IETF-82, two RFCs published.
3265bis on IETF LC.
4244bis headed for 3rd WGLC.
Wants to spend most of the time on mechanism itself.
Hadriel added as author.
Requirements draft heading to WGLC.
Mechanism draft recently (Mar-1-2012) became a WG item.
Andrew Allen: We should use feature tags with a ref. to a spec. defining behavior.
Discussion ensued between Hadriel and Partha on "entities without a Contact header" and whether or not they feature tags
Longer discussion ensued on topic
RjS: Brought up the issue of company name as feature tags and Keith expanded why naming tags after companies is not a good idea.
Hum for determining if a separate table is needed or use the same table.
Hum 1: Same table as is currently in the registry
Hum 2: Create a new IANA registry.
Consensus: We will create a new IANA registry for Feature-Caps
Went through history. Couple of running implementations and more interest from more.
Main behavior is between websocket UA and first hop in the network. Proxy-to-proxy websocket is for future use.
Sal: proxy-to-proxy websocket will not work anyway.
Problem: How to get requests coming in the backwards direction, i.e., to the ws client.
Option 1: use normative language MUST use outbound.
Option 2: use non-normative, outbound as preferred but other alternatives
Option 3: do nothing
Bernard: Option 1 is problematic. Don't mandate it.
Christer: We need a option 4: REG that has succeeded, and edge proxy can send requests on existing connections.
Seemed the room was happy with Option 2.
Bernard: Have you seen any weird firewall interactions with WebSockets?
Victor: We have not tested extensively.
Sal: Talked to some folks from Google who have deployed WebSockets without problems.
Quick poll and hum indicated WG support for adopting as a milestone. Will be verified on list.