RE: [agenda] CT Call 2 December 2008

It appears I won't be able to join the call today.  My regrets.

Sean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Sean Patterson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 12:23 AM
> To: Francois Daoust; public-bpwg-ct
> Subject: RE: [agenda] CT Call 2 December 2008
> 
> 
> I will probably be a few minutes late for this weeks teleconference.
> 
> Sean
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org on behalf of Francois Daoust
> Sent: Mon 12/1/2008 7:37 AM
> To: public-bpwg-ct
> Subject: [agenda] CT Call 2 December 2008
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the agenda for tomorrow's call.
> 
> I propose that we start by striking a few supposedly easy topics before
> we get to the core of the remaining stuff.
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> -----
> Chair: François
> Staff Contact: François
> Known regrets: none
> 
> Date: 2008-12-02T1500Z for 60mn
> Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
> Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
> IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.
> 
> Latest draft:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/081107
> 
> 
> 1. Test the effect of HEAD Requests on Various Servers
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0059.html
> Doc:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-applicable-HTTP-mehtods
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No identified problem associated with switching a
> HEAD request to a GET request, other than the fact that server
> statistics are impacted. No text change in 4.1.1 on that regard.
> 
> ... and close ACTION-710 on Francois.
> 
> 
> 2. LC-2097 - Review of OPES work
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0045.html
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref-2097 resolve yes and add a section under 1.3
> scope noting that OPES RFC 3238 is relevant to this work and has been
> reviewed.
> 
> 
> 3. Editorial comments from Eduardo
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html
> 
> - action Jo to incorporate the editorial remarks in next version of the
> draft?
> 
> 
> 4. LC-2050 - Restructuring, recoding, optimizing
> -----
> Jo's changelog at:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-
> 20080801/2050
> - we had resolved to mention we are only talking about restructuring.
> - while preparing the new draft, Jo thought it did not make sense anymore.
> - agreed?
> 
> ... and close old ACTION-832 on Sean
> 
> 
> 5. Cached responses and pagination
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0023.html
> Doc:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-serving-cached-responses
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: replace SHOULD by MUST in "and [proxies] SHOULD
> provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy"
> 
> 
> 6. Validation against formal published grammar (4.2.8.1)
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0037.html
> Doc:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-alteration-of-response
> 
> Conclusion?
> 
> 
> 7. Alteration of header fields (4.1.5)
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html
> Doc:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-altering-header-values
> 
> - "Proxies SHOULD NOT change headers other than User-Agent and
> Accept(-*) headers[...]"
> ... inconsistent with 4.1.6 since the CT proxy is already asked to add
> X-Forwarded-For and Via headers and to *change* them (more specifically,
> to complete their values) if they are already defined.
> - Several other headers could have to be changed by the CT-proxy
> (Content-Length for instance)
> - What are trying to say here?
> 
> ... and close ACTION-843 on Jo
> 
> 
> 8. Testing
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0024.html
> Doc:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-testing
> 
> - action someone to propose some text to clarify the intent?
> 
> 
> 9. LC-2040 - On properly defining the X-Device-* headers
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0062.html
> Doc:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-original-headers
> Last Call comment:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-
> 20080801/2040
> 
> - Stick to "existing practice" or define the header appropriately?
> - I note we also reference the X-Forwarded-For header.
> 
> ... and close ACTION-879 on Francois.
> 
> 
> 10. HTTPS links rewriting
> -----
> Threads:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0063.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0065.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Dec/0007.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-
> comments/2008OctDec/0007.html
> 
> - Security problems arise with links rewriting, whether links are in
> HTTP or HTTPS, because of a change of origin that enable cross-site
> scripting attacks.
> - Add a "Security considerations" section?
> - Specific HTTPS guidelines?
> 
> ... and close ACTION-860, ACTION-864 on Jo
> ... and close ACTION-859 on Francois
> 
> 
> 11. Mandating respect of some heuristics
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0080.html
> 
> - should a mobile CT proxy be allowed to transform content that was
> developed with mobile in mind?
> - forbid restructuring and recoding in the cases mentioned by Dom?
> - allow exceptions to the rules as proposed by Eduardo?
> - add an equivalent to section 4.1.5.4 on responses?
> 
> 
> 12. WML and the guidelines
> -----
> Threads:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0068.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0071.html
> 
> - Mostly merged with previous topic
> - Amend the text on http-equiv not to mention specifically *HTML* content?
> 
> 
> 13. Implementation Conformance Statement
> -----
> Thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0078.html
> 
> - Improvements? Comments?
> 
> 
> 14. Review actions
> -----
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
> 
> 
> 15. AOB
> -----
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 15:22:19 UTC