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

Jo,
To clarify my comments, I was not referring to the question of whether
the CT proxy must *always* comply to CP directives. The group does need
to resolve that question. For me it's OK if we leave non-compliance to
whatever we decide as a CT proxy service provider decision (it will be,
anyway). I think most service providers would choose non-compliance if
it was necessary due to business imperatives. 
 
I was speaking to the different question of what type of CT functions
are in scope. If a CP does not say "no-transform", I believe a CT proxy
should have the option of breaking large pages into small pieces that
are served locally, including emulation of Javascript etc. Do you agree
to that?
 

Best regards,

Bryan Sullivan | AT&T 

________________________________

From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Sullivan, Bryan; public-bpwg-ct
Subject: 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