- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:36:49 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Guys,
The usual #bpwg IRC channel is being used today by the mobileOK Pro
meeting, so let's use another one for today's call:
#bpwgct
François.
Francois Daoust wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the proposed agenda for tomorrow's teleconf:
>
> Chair: François
> Staff Contact: François
> Known regrets: none
>
> Date: 2008-02-05T1500Z 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.
>
> Most of the topics are based on:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Feb/0000.html
> and replies.
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1. Next call
> ------------
> I'll be at MWC'08 next week. I guess I'm not the only one.
> -> cancel next call?
>
> 2. CT-proxy vs CT-gateway
> -------------------------
> - do we need to make the distinction?
> - possibility to override the User-Agent header?
> - differences apart from the possibility to override the User-Agent
> header.
> - if it confuses us, it will confuse readers, so we need to be clear on
> our definition.
>
> 3. HTTP Cache-Control extensions
> --------------------------------
> - write and submit an IETF draft? timeframe?
> - extensions needed
> -> ACTION-603 on fd
>
> 4. Preferred-medium directive
> -----------------------------
> - use-cases?
> - link to CT: isn't the feature more generic, that is between the
> end-user and the server, no matter if there's a proxy in-between?
> - link to content-negotiation: should we push for the use of HTTP 300
> and/or RFC 2295 knowing it's not widely implemented?
> http://www.rfc.net/rfc2616.html#s10.3.1
> http://rfc.net/rfc2295.html
> - solution: new HTTP header, DDR attribute, something else?
>
> 5. @@allow-https-rewrite directive
> ----------------------------------
> - banking example
> - ACTION-633 on Andrew
>
> 6. User-Agent header modification and original user-agent
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> - do we need both?
> - solution: new HTTP header?
>
> 7. Cache-Control: no-transform, and "dangerous" content
> -------------------------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jan/0022.html
> - proposed resolutions: no exception and add a [@@correct dangerous
> content] directive. Any objections?
> -> ACTION-625 on fd
>
> 8. Cache-Control: no-transform and WAP1 gateways
> ------------------------------------------------
> -> ACTION-634 on fd
>
> 9. User-agent detection from a proxy and browser's point of view
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> -> ACTION-632 on Bryan
>
> 10. Use case analysis (part 4.)
> -------------------------------
> - We must check that fall-back behavior works in all cases.
> - Who's to take care of that part?
>
> 11. AOB
> -------
> - review pending ACTION-606 and ACTION-607 on Heiko
> - anything else?
>
>
> François.
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 10:37:02 UTC