- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:49:30 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
Hi,
The minutes of our Teleconf' are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
François.
22 Jan 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jan/0013.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Bryan_Sullivan, Magnus, francois, jo, kemp, hgerlach, SeanP
Regrets
Andrew
Chair
francois
Scribe
bryan
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Greetings from francois
2. [6]HTTP Cache-Control extensions
3. [7]Requirements (2.1)
4. [8]Cache-Control: no-transform, and "dangerous" content
(2.4)
5. [9]CT proxies and "non browser" environments (3.2)
6. [10]Roadmap
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot-ng> Date: 22 January 2008
<hgerlach> yes I am here:-)
<jo> scribe: bryan
Greetings from francois
<hgerlach> for now or for future as well?
<jo> Close ACTION-608
Francois: I will chair the CT task, so we will close the AI related
to finding one.
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-608 Recruit a TF lead for CT closed
Francois: Taskforce homepage needs update to show the change.
HTTP Cache-Control extensions
Francois: Discussionussion today covers the CT document updates.
... Cache-control header changes check is still pending. No reply
yet from other W3C groups.
<jo> ACTION-603?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-603 -- Jo Rabin to find out how to liaise with
HTTP NG work -- due 2008-01-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/603
[12] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/603
Francois to carry forward the AI for HTTP NG relationship.
Francois: any other alternatives to dependence upon extensions?
Heiko: maybe two step approach
<jo> s/Francoise to/Francois: I will
Jo: discusson with Rhys etc earlier resulted in decision at the
time....
... ... it would be premature to publish something at that time.
.mobi published a style guide draft related to this in the meantime.
<jo> [13]http://dev.mobi/node/612
[13] http://dev.mobi/node/612
Jo: providing guidance on server config on how to achieve. W3C could
do something similar, but we could also note in the document the
option for a minimum control based upon headers.
Heiko: we do not need headers for access to mobile OK sites.
Jo: we need them if we want to make the proxy aware of the user
agent's basic control preferences.
Heiko: so this does not depend upon knowledge of mobile OK by the
user agent
Jo: correct
<jo> [jo explained that the dotMobi paper describes use of Vary and
no-transform which are pre-existing headers]
Jo: three possible actions: one, to note that we can use
no-transform without extensions, and vary header also.
... second, to publish a note that we can do something new
consistent with .mobi style guide
<jo> [3 possibilities are: a) do nothing, b) publish a short note on
what could be done with existing headers, basically the same as the
dotMobi style guide and c) include a note to this effect in the
Guidelines document]
Heiko: could combine with other approaches e.g. via powder and
mobile OK, to define how the user knows about mobile OK sites
Jo: there are two aspects: (1) how to know when to transcode, e.g.
based upon heuristics as Sean mentioned earlier; (2) control aspects
... we can address the control aspects separately
Francois: the control features are listed as to be defined, and we
should make the values more precise, recommend something
Jo: the document does need a summary of the proposed changes
Francois: do we want to think about the values on the mailing list?
Jo: we can summarize them and put text in the draft
<jo> ACTION: Jo to add a section summarising the proposed values and
proposed names to next draft of Guidelines [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-622 - Add a section summarising the
proposed values and proposed names to next draft of Guidelines [on
Jo Rabin - due 2008-01-29].
Requirements (2.1)
Francois: next topic, about requirements part
... re the editor's note, (is it needed); I think the section is
valuable for the reader
Jo: agrees, and proposes to make it a summary of features enabled by
this spec; but it's a description then, not requirements
Francois: yet its a description and maybe fits better in another
section
Jo: will recast the section as a summary
<jo> ACTION: Recast the Requirements section as a Summary and make
it accurate as compared with the details in section 4 [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - Recast
<jo> ACTION: Jo to Recast the Requirements section as a Summary and
make it accurate as compared with the details in section 4 [recorded
in [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-623 - Recast the Requirements section
as a Summary and make it accurate as compared with the details in
section 4 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-01-29].
<jo> Close ACTION-604
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-604 Elaborate current draft especially in the
areas of requirements closed
Cache-Control: no-transform, and "dangerous" content (2.4)
Francois: wondering if we can define dangerous content more
precisely or we should remove the note
<francois> Bryan: Before the call, I was writing some contents on
the list. I think it's useful for us to note there are exceptions to
the rules, but not go into details
<jo> [17]Proxy States
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080118#d2e237
<francois> ... We should say clearly that whenever a Proxy does
that, it MUST say so
Francois: what about parallels with child protection?
Jo: wanted to say that the proxy has certain functions that it will
perform, and that there are cases in which it is acceptable if those
functions are provided with active agreement
... agreement of the user and content provider, e.g. removing
images. But we need to say something otherwise there will be
misunderstandings in deployments.
Francois: if we add extensions e.g. except-for, does that help here?
Jo: the statement was written as a general statement, e.g. whether
the proxy transformed content may rely upon pre-defined agreements
Heiko: believes content blocking is a separate function and should
not affect the controls via no-transform; how is content filtering
related to transcoding
Jo: believes filtering is not related
Francois: agrees
... so what is the agreement, should we mention that there are
exceptions?
<jo> [jo used child protection as an analogy to try to justify the
proxy intervening in transparent mode, but now regrets using that
analogy :-(]
Jo: if a proxy gets no-transform on its own, it should not do fix-up
on its on; if there is no directive, it could fixup the content
... it should be possible to setup a "session" to operate in
no-transform mode
<hgerlach> sorry I have to leave for the doc, changed to mobile
Jo: the proxy could become passive, e.g. upon no-transform
reception, and a user interacting with the proxy instructs the proxy
to no transform e.g. with a particular domain
Francois: so there seems to be an exception to the rule in the
section, is that what we want?
... we could continue this on the list
<jo> ACTION: francois to initiate discuss on the exception wording
ref dangerous content [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - francois
<jo> ACTION: fran to initiate discuss on the exception wording ref
dangerous content [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - fran
<francois> ACTION: me to initiate discuss on the exception wording
ref dangerous content [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<francois> ACTION: me to initiate discuss on the exception wording
ref dangerous content [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-624 - Initiate discuss on the exception
wording ref dangerous content [on Marcos Eguillor Fernandez - due
2008-01-29].
<jo> Close ACTION-624
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-624 Initiate discuss on the exception wording
ref dangerous content closed
Heiko: add a topic, can POST responses be modified?
<francois> ACTION: Daoust to initiate discuss on the exception
wording ref dangerous content [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-625 - Initiate discuss on the exception
wording ref dangerous content [on François Daoust - due 2008-01-29].
Heiko: believes that only HEAD and GET responses are covered so far
... in section 3
Jo: requests Heiko raise this on the list
CT proxies and "non browser" environments (3.2)
Francois: are non-browser web applications beyond the scope of the
document? How can a CT-aware proxy know this?
... should transformation occur in these cases?
Jo: Bryan added this in contribution.
... J2ME clients often use HTTP thru proxies, the question is how to
tell.
<francois> Bryan: I can add some text on that.
<francois> ... I would like to see this as part of the DD repository
<francois> ... the only possibility is to track the user-agent
Bryan: will contribute text on this
<jo> ACTION: Bryan to contribute text on detection of non-browser
user agent [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-626 - Contribute text on detection of
non-browser user agent [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-01-29].
Francois: how can a CT proxy interact with a non-browser client
user? Is the basic assumption that transform should not occur in
non-browser environments?
Jo: agrees, our focus should be limited to browsing
Bryan: there are other use cases where CT functions will be useful
also
Jo: in browsing use cases, the the origin server needs to be
CT-aware
Bryan: agrees, the CT proxy should not break things
<jo> [in order to stop image format manipulation etc.]
<jo> [in non browsing use cases the use cases are even less clear]
<jo> ACTION: Jo to make clear in the scope that we are talking
browsing here [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-627 - Make clear in the scope that we
are talking browsing here [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-01-29].
Francois: we could recommend that in a CT-unaware / non-browser case
the CT proxy should not get in the way
Roadmap
Francois: would like to see the document move forward; not much more
to change before FPWD, e.g. extension values, whether to use them or
not...
Jo: preference is to have a draft ASAP in Feb.
Bryan: agrees
Jo: will not be in the next week's call, and will try to get a new
draft out by Friday; the group should review it, and set a goal for
lengthy discussion in Seoul
... goal for FPWD decision in Seoul
Francois: agrees, will update the roadmap based upon that
<jo> ACTION: Jo to produce draft 1d by Friday [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-628 - Produce draft 1d by Friday [on Jo
Rabin - due 2008-01-29].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Bryan to contribute text on detection of non-browser
user agent [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Daoust to initiate discuss on the exception wording
ref dangerous content [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: fran to initiate discuss on the exception wording ref
dangerous content [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to initiate discuss on the exception wording
ref dangerous content [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to add a section summarising the proposed values
and proposed names to next draft of Guidelines [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to make clear in the scope that we are talking
browsing here [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to produce draft 1d by Friday [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to Recast the Requirements section as a Summary and
make it accurate as compared with the details in section 4 [recorded
in [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: me to initiate discuss on the exception wording ref
dangerous content [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: me to initiate discuss on the exception wording ref
dangerous content [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Recast the Requirements section as a Summary and make
it accurate as compared with the details in section 4 [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.133
([38]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/01/22 16:46:11 $
[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 16:49:46 UTC