RE: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document

Hi Jo,

The issue is that we are talking about sites which are not supporting mobile user agents. So the probability is quite low that those guys will read 2616 over night since they are simply not interested in that area. Otherwise they would already support mobile useragents. We are talking about very few sites. Again the list only affects the 200ok instead of 406 case.

I agree with Bryan "If the CT recommendations do not include this as an option, it must certainly at least *not* prohibit it: vendors must have the freedom to meet customer (CT proxy operator) requirements without being called "non-compliant", if compliance to W3C recommendations is considered important."


-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rabin [] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 17:40
To: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group
Subject: Re: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document

THanks Heiko, but I still don't think I agree.

It's Tuesday, I'm and I return 200 (sorry don't recognise your device)

CT operator notices that and puts me in a white list. Requests now arrive with desktop headers. I send 200 (wonderful valuable content)

It's Wednesday. Realizing the error of my ways, and because I read RFC
2616 overnight and because I also read Mobile Web Web Practices, and because I looked at my logs, and see loads of mobile UAs, I now offer a designed for mobile experience.

It's Thursday, I look at my logs. Strangely, I have never served my carefully made mobile experience via CT operator.

What do I do next?


On 11/06/2008 16:27, Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote:
> Hi Jo,
> Thaks for the FB.
> No this is a different issue. We need a white list/allow list for those pages only where  the CT is allowed to setup a different non mobile useragent to overconme the 200OK / 406 issue. CP is not affected by this. We never will have the situation that a CP does not want to get the page adapted when he returns 200OK and says in human language "Sorry your Browser is not supported by this site". We even never will be in contact with those guys. So the only option is to introduce that list. It never will affect parties which dont want to have content adaptation. 
> Does this clarifies the situation?
> Cheers
> Heiko
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rabin []
> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 17:19
> To: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document
> I think we have a terminology problem here, I assume that what you're saying is that an "allow list" (i.e. a list of sites for which transformation is allowed) should be recommended practice? I don't think I agree, anyway, in that it means that the CP then has great difficulty in getting changes to the behaviour of their site noticed.
> Jo
> On 11/06/2008 13:45, Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Page 7,
>> 1) Does Allow and Disallow lists mean Black and White lists?
>> 2) If so, I strongly recommend to support a white lists within the CT 
>> Guidelines. We do not know owner/stakeholder of most of the websites 
>> which are "non made for mobile". So we can not expect their support.
>> But we can understand the customer needs and a customer could tell us 
>> that content adaptation failed e.g. due to 200ok instead of 406.
>> This is why I think we do need a white list. For Urls contained in 
>> that whitelist, Content adaptation shall be done in that way that a 
>> Mozilla User Agent (non mobile user agent) is setup instead of the 
>> mobile user agent.
>> This helps us to manage with the 406/200OK issue without buyin from 
>> the site owner.
>> Clarification:
>> I agree that blacklists should be ommitted. But white lists will 
>> deliver a clear advantage.
>> *3.2.3 Control by Administrative or Other Arrangements.*
>> The preferences of users and of servers* may* be ascertained by means 
>> outside the scope of this document, for example:
>>     * the use by transforming proxies of a disallow list of Web sites
>>       for which Content Transformation is known to diminish the user
>>       experience of content or be ineffective;
>>     * the use by transforming proxies of an allow list of Web sites for
>>       which Content Transformation is known to be necessary;
>>     * terms and conditions of service, as agreed between the user and
>>       the Content Transformation service provider.
>> *Note:*
>> Allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems for 
>> content providers since there is no mechanism for them to establish 
>> which lists they should be on, nor any generic mechanism though which 
>> they can check or change their status.
>> Cheers
>> *Heiko Gerlach*
>> *Vendor Manager / Product Owner*
>> *Global Consumer Internet Services & Platforms*
>> *Tel: +49 211 820 2168*
>> *Fax: +49 211 820 2141*
>> *Mobile +49 172 20 40 50 7*
>> *E-Mail:* ___**_
>> <>**
>> * *
>> Vodafone Group Services GmbH
>> Mannesmannufer 2, D-40213 Düsseldorf
>> Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 53554
>> Geschäftsführung: Dr. Joachim Peters, Rainer Wallek
>> This message and any files or documents attached are confidential and 
>> may also be legally privileged or protected by other legal rules. It 
>> is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not 
>> the named addressee or you have received this email in error, please 
>> inform the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not 
>> copy or disclose it or its contents or use it for any purpose. Thank you.
>> Please also note that transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure 
>> or error-free.
>> *P* Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing 
>> this e-mail

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 07:02:43 UTC