RE: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about CT and Cache-Control extensions

Jo,
The notion of a "gap" is only relevant to end-to-end security, thus for
non-secure page access is a non-issue. 
 
For non-secure pages, whether we call the function one of a "gateway" or
"proxy", the question is whether W3C wants to address recommendations
for this degree of content transformation (e.g. breaking a big page up
into smaller pages served locally, emulating scripting, etc). For AT&T,
that is an important use-case and we support it being in scope for the
CT guidelines.
 
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T 
________________________________

From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:56 AM
To: Aaron Kemp
Cc: Sullivan, Bryan; public-bpwg-ct
Subject: RE: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about
CT and Cache-Control extensions



Well, looks like we are on course to disagree again :-( 

 

I am worried about the idea of a Transforming proxy being regarded as a
gateway precisely because of that kind of issue. (Not to mention
reintroducing the WAP Gap and so on)

 

Jo

 

________________________________

From: Aaron Kemp [mailto:kemp@google.com] 
Sent: 06 February 2008 18:51
To: Jo Rabin
Cc: Sullivan, Bryan; public-bpwg-ct
Subject: Re: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about
CT and Cache-Control extensions

 

On Feb 6, 2008 1:47 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

	I think the point is that no-transform is not a new lock.

Your previous comment was about adding finer grained bits to
no-transform (which would be new).

No-transform is only applicable if we treat these things as proxies
anyway -- I can argue they are more like user agents of their own, or
user agent extensions, which makes the no-transform not applicable.
It's more like a text mode browser (which won't adhere to the
no-transform).

Aaron