W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > October 2008

LC-2078: claim of conformance in a Via HTTP header

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:06:42 +0200
Message-ID: <48E63502.8040406@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

The Last Call comment

As text
* Section When a proxy inserts the URI to make a claim of
conformance, exactly what are they claiming -- all must-level
requirements are met? Should-level? What is the use case for this

I think that the main use case is not really for the Content Provider to 
be able to tell whether there is a CT-proxy on the line that conforms to 
the guidelines, but rather to tell that there IS a CT-proxy on the line.

That was the rationale I used to discuss it at first:

and the view we had when we resolved to use the comment:
  later simplified in: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-bpwg-minutes.html#item01

I note that the probability that a CT-proxy vendor adopts the convention 
to put "http://www.w3.org/ns/ct" as a comment in a Via header and does 
not follow the other guidelines is fairly low. Still I think this should 
be used as an ID flag ("I'm a CT-proxy"), and not as a claim ("I'm a 
CT-proxy that conforms to the spec").

I propose to resolve yes, and to update the text in to:
[[ Proxies [...] SHOULD indicate that they have transformation 
capabilities by including a comment in the VIA HTTP header consisting of 
the URI "http://www.w3.org/ns/ct" ]]

... but then, "content transformation capabilities" is not precise 
enough, any way to make things clear?

(AFAICT, the wording changed towards "conformance" in revision 1l of the 

Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 15:07:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:30 UTC