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

[minutes] CT Call Tuesday 9 September 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:57:26 +0200
Message-ID: <48C69CE6.2070409@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Hi guys,

The minutes of today's call are available at:

... and copied as text below.

Main points:
- we'll keep the Task Force for the time being to be able to address the 
Last Call comments in a timely manner.
- the comments were assigned to the different participants. Thanks for 
exposing your thoughts on the comments that were assigned to you on the 
mailing-list for others to react. See the following email to get a link 
to the list of comments that you need to address:
- Jo agreed to take on section 4.1.5 on alteration of HTTP header 
values. We'll be looking for stats, and trying to tighten positions 
around the modification of the User-Agent header while being looser on 
the modification of other HTTP headers.
- Tom agreed to see what he could find out for comments of section on HTTPS Link re-writing.


09 Sep 2008



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-irc


           hgerlach, Francois, TomHume, Rob, Pontus, jo, SeanP




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Introductions
          2. [6]Future of the Task Force
          3. [7]Sharing the workload
          4. [8]Introductions (bis)
          5. [9]Sharing the workload (bis)
          6. [10]Section 4.1.5
          7. [11] HTTPS link rewriting
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items


    francois: introduces Tom as an Invited Expert with specific mobile
    development expertise to enhance representation from that side
    ... and to heslp reolve the last call comments
    ... so round the table
    ... I am the staff contact for BP and lead the CTTF "I am here to

    heiko: I work for Vodafone and own content adaptation in Vodafone

    pontus: from Ericsson have been working on the CT product

    rob: from Openwave responsible for OpenWeb

    jo: from dotMobi, co-chair of BP and editor of CT doc

    tom: I am MD of Future Platforms and increasingly involved in mobile
    Web hence come across transformation

Future of the Task Force

    rancois: just wanted to review this, before August we thought we
    might be able to stop the TF and move the work back to the WG but
    with the number of comments think it is appropriate to continue the

    <hgerlach> me

    +1 to continuing the TF

    heiko: need to get comments done asap should not keep people waiting

    francois: don't think we can do it in 2 weeks but yes we seem to be

    <hgerlach> +1

Sharing the workload

    francois: I split the comments up between the TF members and wanted
    people to be responsible so we can just get on it with it, the
    allocation is random

Introductions (bis)

    francois: introduces Tom to SeanP who just joined

    seanp: work for novarra

    tom: (per the above)

Sharing the workload (bis)

    francois: was just trying to find a way to go faster rather than to
    impose anything on anyone
    ... I left 2 unallocated to deal with today

    <francois> [14]Division of the Last Call comments


    francois: any objections to my allocation of coments?
    ... person responsible to read and summarise the comment and the
    position we took before, linking where appropriate, and propose
    changes tot he spec or provide a rationale for saying no, etc.

    <scribe> ... done on the mailing list and hence go faster on the

    <scribe> ... any views?

    +1 to the allocation as it stands

    heiko: I think I am the only one who can't do anything with the Vary
    header so would prefer not to do that

    jo: I'll take 2081 and 2008

    <hgerlach> +1

Section 4.1.5





    jo: I will take on making proposed responses but first think that we
    need to agree a policy
    ... for example I would not be averse to a document that said don't
    change any headers
    ... but I think the members of the TF need to express views

    seanp: I like it as it is, think it is practical as it is written to
    meet the reality of how it is being done now as well as being
    consistent with the way the group sees content developing

    rob: the comments seem mainly about POSTs - is that right?

    francois: hmmm, not really

    rob: oops, I was reading the wrong section
    ... we came up with this text because we thought that altering the
    user agent is a good way of getting content to a device that
    otherwise would not be able to get it

    <francois> jo: I don't preempt discussion on this, but the rationale
    is twofold: 1. otherwise content would be blocked. I'm personally
    unaware of this happening. To be fair, we should have more

    <francois> ... 2. because some people want the reformatted view.

    <francois> ... Not much to say about that apart from the fact that
    it may occur.

    jo: I think we need to justify with some figure how frequently
    servers respond with a 406 or equivalent that blocks the user
    getting a response, which is the main justification for this. The
    other justification, which is that the user has requested a
    restructured desktop experience seems to me at least conceivable,
    but to what extent do we need to accommodate that possibility?

    heiko: In general I agree with Jo - but should we differentiate
    between different headers - e.g. the User-Agent might be special,
    other headers should probably be treated differently
    ... I think that the 406 is something different which is why I
    mentioned earlier that we should have a white list

    francois: what other headers do you think are problematical, the
    section benefits from being generic

    jo: I do think we should distinguish between rejection with 406
    because of incompatible accepts vs incompatible User-Agents

    francois: well, aaron had an action a while back about this, maybe
    we should re-awaken his action

    jo: sure, google would be well placed to do this if they were able,
    if they aren't then we will have to do it elsewhere in the group

    francois: so you're suggesting we need to test if we can be stricter
    about the user agent not being changed - and continue to be strict
    about the accept-* ?

    [discussion about who can supply info]

    seanp: I can see if we have anything on that

    francois: I'll take an action to get back to aaron

    jo: I can look and see if we have anyting too

    <scribe> ACTION: daoust to get back to aaron from google to see if
    he can get some stats for us [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-842 - Get back to aaron from google to see
    if he can get some stats for us [on Fran├žois Daoust - due

    <scribe> ACTION: jo to see if he can come up with wording on this
    section that might accommodate everyone [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-843 - See if he can come up with wording
    on this section that might accommodate everyone [on Jo Rabin - due

    action-843+ (the section in question being 4.1.5) HTTPS link rewriting





    francois: we got lots of comments and the comments are about saying
    that HTTPS links should not be re-written in any circumstances as it
    is a man in the middle attack
    ... either we say this is not allowed or we stick to the text we
    have amended a bit
    ... positions and volunteers to address these comments?

    sean: we have a pretty good statement in the document - if you
    outlaw this you can't get to your mail etc. - a lot of the comments
    refer to banks but there are a lot of other sites that you can't go
    to which have less security requirements

    francois: I don't have a clear position, I understand both the need
    and the danger

    <hgerlach> maybe just add "towards "server and user" at the end

    francois: if anything I'd say it just should not be allowed
    ... but agree that some applications don't have to be that secure
    ... any more thoughts?
    ... anyone want to take this on?

    tom: one of the difficulties here is that it pushes an understanding
    of the mechanisms on to the user who probably doesn't understand
    what is going on

    <hgerlach> yes, but this is the same with a native browser e.g.

    tom: not even clear on the web now, with regular desktop browsers

    francois: agree, what do you think would help ref the user

    tom: yes, good idea, but can't think of an easy way to do this
    avoiding malicious attacks in the context of a mobile device

    francois: how about noting that and thinking about it, can I assign
    you the comments
    ... a fresh look at the section by someone who did not participate
    in the previous discussions

    <dom> re https, the web security context guidelines might have some
    useful definitions and ideas to solve that problem:

      [21] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wsc-ui-20080724/

    <Zakim> rob, you wanted to echo Sean's comment; many websites use
    HTTPS login even though the content isn't sensitive. As Tom says,
    the end-user somehow makes a decision about what is

    rob: there is a difference between logging in to hotmail, where
    everything subsequent to login is done in the plain anyway
    ... there is an education of the end-users to do, to allow them to
    use some kind of login that uses https for that kind of thing, but
    not use it for banking, I don't think we should ban this completely

    francois: but shouldn't we put the load on the CP in that if they
    don't need https they shouldn't use it
    ... but there is more than that - https is used to protect content
    in both cases

    sean: I agree with most of what Rob says - https is secure from the
    user to the operator then from operator to Content Provider - so if
    you trust your operator you are probably OK if not you should not be
    using HTTPs through a proxy

    jo: points out that Dom pasted the link:

      [22] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wsc-ui-20080724/

    francois: we should take a look at this


    francois: we seem to have assigned all the comments so go ahead and
    discuss on the mailing list

    <hgerlach> great, bye!;-)

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to get back to aaron from google to see if he
    can get some stats for us [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: jo to see if he can come up with wording on this
    section that might accommodate everyone [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version 1.133
     ([26]CVS log)
     $Date: 2008/09/09 15:21:10 $

      [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 15:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:29 UTC