RE: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about CT and Cache-Control extensions

I am sad to think that actually we have now run out of road on options
to create a more complete solution. We have known for some time that new
vocabulary is needed. We thought we might be able to do that while
remaining in scope of our charter. We can write a note describing the
characteristics of such a solution. We can't as the BPWG write an RFC
describing how that solution is implemented.

 

I suggest that on the call tomorrow we discuss this and decide what kind
of Rec we want to produce bearing in mind that we are using only the
vocabulary elements that exist in HTTP today.  To my mind this also,
btw, resolves in favor of the CP when it comes to the question of "whose
preference counts". As the CP has no graduation of vocabulary available
to them other than "leave it alone".

 

Jo

 

 

________________________________

From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sullivan, Bryan
Sent: 06 February 2008 22:41
To: public-bpwg-ct
Subject: RE: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about
CT and Cache-Control extensions

 

Jo,

The notion of a "gap" is only relevant to end-to-end security, thus for
non-secure page access is a non-issue. 

 

For non-secure pages, whether we call the function one of a "gateway" or
"proxy", the question is whether W3C wants to address recommendations
for this degree of content transformation (e.g. breaking a big page up
into smaller pages served locally, emulating scripting, etc). For AT&T,
that is an important use-case and we support it being in scope for the
CT guidelines.

 

Best regards,

Bryan Sullivan | AT&T 

________________________________

From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:56 AM
To: Aaron Kemp
Cc: Sullivan, Bryan; public-bpwg-ct
Subject: RE: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about
CT and Cache-Control extensions

Well, looks like we are on course to disagree again :-( 

 

I am worried about the idea of a Transforming proxy being regarded as a
gateway precisely because of that kind of issue. (Not to mention
reintroducing the WAP Gap and so on)

 

Jo

 

________________________________

From: Aaron Kemp [mailto:kemp@google.com] 
Sent: 06 February 2008 18:51
To: Jo Rabin
Cc: Sullivan, Bryan; public-bpwg-ct
Subject: Re: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about
CT and Cache-Control extensions

 

On Feb 6, 2008 1:47 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

	I think the point is that no-transform is not a new lock.

Your previous comment was about adding finer grained bits to
no-transform (which would be new).

No-transform is only applicable if we treat these things as proxies
anyway -- I can argue they are more like user agents of their own, or
user agent extensions, which makes the no-transform not applicable.
It's more like a text mode browser (which won't adhere to the
no-transform).

Aaron