On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:06:21PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> Wow... do you work for the government? ;)

I just spend a lot of time at CMM level 3 :^)

> The RFC does not require making a fresh DHCP connection. It specifies
> that the URL for the PAC *may* be contained in DHCP option 252. It is
> up to the implementation to figure out how to get that option. The
> DHCP and SLP techniques are optional according to the RFC and I may
> never implement them (they are not currently implemented). If I were
> to implement DHCP, I would NOT make a new DHCP request, but instead
> search the existing dhcp lease on the system.

In my experience, a DHCP server won't provide option 252 unless the client
asks for it specifically, which doesn't seem to happen very often. Plus,
many DHCP clients will just ignore the value even if it is sent. So,
for greatest interoperability libproxy would need to have the capability
of doing its own requests.

> I'm sure I will! I'm happy to work with someone on a patch. :) The
> learning curve for libproxy is minimal compared to libcurl (we only
> have 3 functions). This is why we are trying to push upstream people
> to write patches.

Yang brings up a good point about licensing, although libcurl already
supports libidn which is also LGPL. We'd never be able to get rid of the
the existing proxy code in libcurl for that reason, or enable it by default.

>>> Dan

-- 
http://www.MoveAnnouncer.com              The web change of address service
          Let webmasters know that your web site has moved