- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:43:17 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
We did a bit of clean-up, covered "easy" topics.
Resolutions taken during the call:
- 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.
- 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.
- ref. definitions of restructuring, recoding, optimizing, leave things
as they stand and get back to it in the end. If the definitions are not
used in the guidelines, then lessen the wording (not need to use
"definitions" if we don't make use of the term)
- Add a short sentence on "pagination" first time it is mentioned to
clarify what we mean
(Eduardo to provide a definition)
- replace SHOULD by MUST in "and [proxies] SHOULD provide a simple means
of retrieving a fresh copy"
Francois.
02 Dec 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Dec/0013.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
tomhume, rob, Francois, Eduardo
Regrets
Jo, SeanP
Chair
francois
Scribe
Tom
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Test the effect of HEAD Requests on Various Servers
2. [6]LC-2097 - Review of OPES work
3. [7]Editorial comments from Eduardo
4. [8]LC-2050 - Restructuring, recoding, optimizing
5. [9]Cached responses and pagination
6. [10]Testing
7. [11]Implementation Conformance Statement
8. [12]Review actions
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Test the effect of HEAD Requests on Various Servers
francois: we were wondering whether our advice to convert HEAD to
GET might produce real problems
<francois> 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.
francois: did tests to ensure that when one sends a HEAD to a
CGI/JSP/etc page, then the code gets executed as if it were a GET -
which makes sense IMHO because server needs to know Content-Length
of response it will return, and therefore needs to run any code to
produce this
<EdC> +1
<rob> +1
+1
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.
<francois> ACTION-710?
<trackbot> ACTION-710 -- François Daoust to test the Effect of HEAD
Requests on Various Servers -- due 2008-07-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/710
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/710
<francois> close ACTION-710
<trackbot> ACTION-710 Test the Effect of HEAD Requests on Various
Servers closed
LC-2097 - Review of OPES work
<francois> [15]Jo's review of OPES work
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0045.html
<francois> 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.
francoise: review triggered by LC comment from the IAB. Jo couldn't
identify any problem.
edC: if OPES is relevant, what's its impact?
francois: OPES is an offshoot of RFC. It describes high-level
non-transparent proxies and services. Transcoding could be described
as an OPES service.
... it doesn't have any strong binding to what we're doing now.
... the IAB sent us a LC comment saying it looks like OPES. It's a
set of guidelines to be followed by non-transparent proxies, to be
respectful of the environment.
... purpose of Jo's review was to determine whether these had any
impact on CTG.
<EdC> +1
+1
<rob> +1
<francois> +1
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.
Editorial comments from Eduardo
francois: Most of these are editorial comments not requiring
discussion, suggest we action Jo to do them in his absence
<EdC> +1
+1 to anything that keeps Jo busy
<francois> ACTION: Jo to take the editorial comments in
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.
html into account for next version of the draft [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-889 - Take the editorial comments in
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.
html into account for next version of the draft [on Jo Rabin - due
2008-12-09].
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html
LC-2050 - Restructuring, recoding, optimizing
francois: we had resolved we would keep the definition, even though
they're vague, and that we'll say that we're only talking about
restructuring.
... whilst preparing the new draft, Jo said it didn't make sense any
more. I tend to agree with him in that we're not doing much with
these definitions right now
... but we're not restricting ourselves to restructuring in the
guidelines
edC: to be very logical, if those differences aren't meaningful in
the document, they shouldn't be set as definitions. We should just
give examples in the intro.
francois: we use the terms restructuring and recoding are used in
the "decision to transform" section.
... if they're not used, we don't need to list them as definitions.
But they still make sense in an introductory section.
... what Jo referred to here was the resolution we took saying we
would only refer to restructuring does not make sense.
... suggest we leave things as they are now and come back to this
later.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. definitions of restructuring,
recoding, optimizing, leave things as they stand and get back to it
in the end. If the definitions are not used in the guidelines, then
lessen the wording (not need to use "definitions" if we don't make
use of the term)
<rob> +1
+1
<EdC> +1
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: ref. definitions of restructuring, recoding, optimizing,
leave things as they stand and get back to it in the end. If the
definitions are not used in the guidelines, then lessen the wording
(not need to use "definitions" if we don't make use of the term)
<francois> ACTION-832?
<trackbot> ACTION-832 -- Sean Patterson to look at what the impact
on the document would be if we removed the definitions referred to
in LC-2050 -- due 2008-09-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/832
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/832
<francois> Close ACTION-832
<trackbot> ACTION-832 Look at what the impact on the document would
be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050 closed
Cached responses and pagination
<francois> "SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh
copy"
rob: if we respect the cache-control: no-cache (or revalidate, or
whatever) that happens when you do a refresh from the handset menu,
there's no need to do anything specific re what you put on the
screen
francois: is this not the case where a CT proxy paginates the
response and sends the paginated response to the user, and the user
clicks next a couple of times. In this case the interaction with the
proxy doesn't normally go back to the origin server
... if the response has expired the proxy should tell the user and
provide a means to retrieve a fresh copy of the resource, to see if
it has changed.
... It was a feature considered "at risk", that didn't receive a lot
of comments.
francois: If it's a blog, for instance, and the response is
paginated it will be confusing to tell the user "there may be a new
version available, but maybe not".
... so the question is, there is a SHOULD. Is there any reason why
it's not a MUST?
EdC: has the issue of why the caching properties associated within
the originating content don't propagate to the fragments been
discussed?
francois: if you start paginating the response and you send the
first page to the user, he'll click on NEXT and the proxy will have
to refetch the newest version of the page.
... if the message changes in the meantime, what's the CT proxy to
serve?
... should it return to p1 or p2 in a new version
rob: the origin server should probably only see 1 request for a page
francois: we have this section remaining because it goes against
caching directives.
... this is why we have the second part of the guideliens
... from a UE POV this doesn't make sense, from a technological POV
it does
EdC: until we see a reason for this not to be the case, should it
not be a MUST?
rob: this would be on lots of pages where large pieces of content
are split, as many web sites send no caching directives, so you have
to assume content is stale.
francois: this is why I don't think the guideline is useful at all.
rob: if the effect is that nearly every page contains the warning
"this page may be out of date"...
francois: I think the notification saying "this page may be out of
date" would be a bit of a burden on every page.
... one could still have a link to refresh the view.
rob: The latter doesn't need to be a link on the page, as long as
cache-control: must-revalidate is observed then there is a simple
means of retrieving a fresh copy.
... clicking on NEXT page for example, would serve me a second page
of the page I got a couple of minutes ago. You can guide the user to
refresh from the handset.
... in which case the handset can send a new header it wouldn't
normally send, inviting the proxy to update the page.
francois: that's a bit of a "power user" feature... is it a "simple
means"?
<EdC> The idea of (whomever spoke) is that the exact refresh may
vary and does not need to be specified in the CTG.
francois: don't feel strongly one way or the other
rob: me neither, but if we're only talking about the second SHOULD
then, this SHOULD should be a MUST
... the other part of Eduardo's message was that paginating
responses isn't clear. Is it the first time it's mentioned?
edC: it's only mentioned in the two types of transformation.
... a short sentence to clarify would be nice.
rob: needs to leave, happy to have second SHOULD replaced by MUST
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add a short sentence on "pagination"
first time it is mentioned to clarify what we mean
+1
<EdC> +1
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: Add a short sentence on "pagination" first time it is
mentioned to clarify what we mean
<francois> ACTION: Eduardo to provide a short definition of
"pagination". [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-890 - Provide a short definition of
\"pagination\". [on Eduardo Casais - due 2008-12-09].
<EdC> +1
+1
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: replace SHOULD by MUST in "and
[proxies] SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy"
<rob> +1
<francois> +1
francois: does the use case Rob mentioned (clicking refresh in the
menu) fit the definition of "something provided by the proxy"?
... is this a question of its respecting the simple means provided
by the browser.
yes
edC: Rob said that "the simple means" is "the user clicking a
refresh on their browser triggers the proxy to refetch the content"
francois: yes
... does the guideline embrace this case? I think so
<EdC> +1
+1
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: replace SHOULD by MUST in "and [proxies] SHOULD provide
a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy"
francois: we shouldn't go too far today as there's only the three of
us left
... otherwise we run the risk of resolving things without true
consensus
francois: would like Jo to be here to experience the joy of
"Validation against formal published grammar (4.2.8.1)"
... eduardo (+?) is strongly in favour of well-formedness. I don't
strongly object, but it feels too strong.
Testing
<francois> ACTION: eduardo to provide some text to clarify the
intent of the Testing section [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-891 - Provide some text to clarify the
intent of the Testing section [on Eduardo Casais - due 2008-12-09].
francois: remaining topics need more participants.
Implementation Conformance Statement
francois: In the light of LC comments received, many commenters felt
SHOULDs weren't strong enough
... the ICS is here to address this, which is why we add in this
section "a conformant product must provide explanation when it
doesn't follow SHOULD statements"
<francois> [22]fd's email on ICS
[22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0078.html
francois: Eduardo, I've seen your comments and have the same
questions.
... started by putting in all the normative statements from the
guidelines. The MUSTs and MUST NOTs give us another guidelines doc
(!)
... one suggestion is that we have some preliminary clause saying "I
follow all the MUST and MUST NOTs" so we can focus on SHOULD/SHOULD
NOTs
... an ICS document SHOULD contain all the normative statements
edC: I'm tempted to say the MUSTs should be there, but how can we
put them there without a huge list?
francois: the doc is automatically generated by XSLT. I can try it
out and you can see what you prefer?
edC: you will have statements mixing MUST and SHOULD though...?
francois: agree there should be 1 statement per line
... each para contains SHOULD or SHOULD NOT
+1
<EdC> +1
edC: I presume that you are trying to deal with some hierarchical
statements. You SHOULD do X, which means you should do A, B, C. If
you don't do X, A B and C don't apply.
francois: that's not quite what I have in mind, but I haven't
checked the statements. But if e.g. a CT proxy doesn't change
request headers, then the SHOULD NOT modify request headers doesn't
apply, because it's already being respected (!)
edC: often there's a column listing other statements that must be
fulfilled if this one is fulfilled - i.e. dependencies.
francois: not sure we have that many hierarchies
Review actions
<francois> ACTION-846?
<trackbot> ACTION-846 -- François Daoust to prepare an
Implementation Conformance Statement -- due 2008-09-29 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/846
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/846
<francois> Close ACTION-846
<trackbot> ACTION-846 Prepare an Implementation Conformance
Statement closed
<francois> ACTION: Prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if
that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not
applicable" or remove it. [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Prepare
<francois> ACTION: daoust to prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to
view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column,
explain "Not applicable" or remove it. [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-892 - Prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT
(to view if that's a good idea), try to add a \"depends on\" column,
explain \"Not applicable\" or remove it. [on François Daoust - due
2008-12-09].
francois: let's close, the remaining topics ought to have others
here
edC: actions to review?
<francois> [26]Actions
[26] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
francois: action-730 has been postponed
... 830 is on bryan
... he's done it
... 833 is on Jo
<francois> ACTION-833?
<trackbot> ACTION-833 -- Jo Rabin to propose text against LC-2003
referring to the TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a
Proxy's internal operation -- due 2008-09-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/833
[27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/833
<francois> Close ACTION-833
<trackbot> ACTION-833 Propose text against LC-2003 referring to the
TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal
operation closed
francois: 834 is already taken into account in the latest version of
the draft
<francois> ACTION-834?
<trackbot> ACTION-834 -- Robert Finean to draft a response to
LC-2034 noting that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to
those methods -- due 2008-09-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/834
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/834
<francois> Close ACTION-834
<trackbot> ACTION-834 Draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods closed
francois: action 843 refers to 4.1.5 where we have an open
issue/discussion
... let's leave for now.
... 850 is on Bryan, re whitelists, he'd proposed to provide some
text and hasn't so we're not mentioning them yet, but have an
introductory text saying we're deliberately not mentioning them
<francois> ACTION-859?
<trackbot> ACTION-859 -- François Daoust to contact IETF TLS group
and advise them of what we are thinking and ask for guidance on what
to recommend to Content Provider about detecting the presence of a
man-in-the-middle proxy -- due 2008-10-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/859
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/859
francois: 859 is done, but I haven't had replies other than "there's
no real way to detect such a thing"
<francois> Close ACTION-859
<trackbot> ACTION-859 Contact IETF TLS group and advise them of what
we are thinking and ask for guidance on what to recommend to Content
Provider about detecting the presence of a man-in-the-middle proxy
closed
francois: we have an open discussion on link rewriting as a whole
<francois> ACTION-860?
<trackbot> ACTION-860 -- Jo Rabin to add clarification to HTTPS
rewriting to make it clear that the via header MUST be added -- due
2008-10-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/860
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/860
<francois> Close ACTION-860
<trackbot> ACTION-860 Add clarification to HTTPS rewriting to make
it clear that the via header MUST be added closed
<francois> ACTION-864?
<trackbot> ACTION-864 -- Jo Rabin to redraft HTTPS section for
discussion on list -- due 2008-10-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/864
[31] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/864
<francois> Close ACTION-864
<trackbot> ACTION-864 Redraft HTTPS section for discussion on list
closed
<francois> ACTION-865
<francois> ACTION-865?
<trackbot> ACTION-865 -- Jo Rabin to word smith resolution on
LC-2069 in line with its spirit and come up with something a bit
cleaner andmore comprehensible -- due 2008-10-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[32]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/865
[32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/865
<francois> [33]LC-2069
[33]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069
francois: 2069 has been dealt with, we changed normative to
non-normatively because we couldn't think of a normative way to word
"regular web browsing"
<francois> Close ACTION-865
<trackbot> ACTION-865 Word smith resolution on LC-2069 in line with
its spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner andmore
comprehensible closed
<francois> ACTION-866?
<trackbot> ACTION-866 -- Jo Rabin to include text referencing
resolution to LC-2003 -- due 2008-10-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/866
[34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/866
<francois> Close ACTION-866
<trackbot> ACTION-866 Include text referencing resolution to LC-2003
closed
francois: suggest we close now
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view
if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain
"Not applicable" or remove it. [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Eduardo to provide a short definition of "pagination".
[recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: eduardo to provide some text to clarify the intent of
the Testing section [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to take the editorial comments in
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.
html into account for next version of the draft [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a
good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not
applicable" or remove it. [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[38]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 16:43:56 UTC