Re: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document

[Boring administrative message:
For the benefit of tracking purpose, I'm linking this to the newly 
created ISSUE-261 on scoping bogus 200 responses, so that we address the 
point during next week's F2F. It's probably not directly related to the 
issue, but I'd say it fits there anyway]


Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Please notice that we are just discussing an allow list for the 200OK/406 use case where the Site returns something like "Sorry your Browser is not supported" in human language. Only in this case we like to setup a Desktop browser user agent string instead of the mobile device User Agent String.
> We are not talking about an allowlist in general. Only for this very few sites there must be an option. The regulary automatical validation of the list won't work in this case since you can not automate this due to the fact that the error message is presented in human language.
> 
> So a general Approach could be:
> 
> 1) Add a Site to the allow list (only to allow to change the user agent string)
> 2) CT sets up a Desktop UA String for those sites
> 3) If a site owner decides to support those site, he simply can add a meta tag (do be defined) which tells the CT system to remove the site from the Allow list. Since the site owner ich changing the content he should be able to add such a Tag 
> 4) Based on the Meta Tag the entry will be removed from that allow list.
> 5) Up from now everything works.
> 
> Summary: By now there is no way to overcome that 200OK/406 issue for those pages where site owner are not involved in the process or even do not have n interest on that. In my opinion the allow list for allowing to change the user agent is the only option. I would be happy if you have better ideas.
> 
> Thanks a lot
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Heiko
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rotan Hanrahan [mailto:rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com] 
> Sent: Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 10:25
> To: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group; Sullivan, Bryan; Jo Rabin
> Cc: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document
> 
> I have sympathy with the position of operators, and understand why some would implement a list-based filter as the most easy solution to their problem. As a supplier of technology to content/service providers who are transitioning from non-mobile to mobile-friendly, it is a concern to me that lists are being used. Even the availability of a form that developers can use to tell an operator of a change in the behaviour of a site is far from ideal. It would mean that a content/service provider would have to know where every form was, and that form would have to be in a language they could understand. Indeed, I expect that if the practice goes any further, our customers will be demanding that we (MobileAware) start filling in these forms on behalf of our customers. I don't find that any more appealing.
> 
> It would be nice if operators that are using lists would take measures to automatically update those lists. Semantic mechanisms may not be widespread yet, but even a simple daily test of sites on the operator's "non-mobile" list would be easy to implement, and have little negative effect. Just keep cycling through the sites on the list, and use a signature of a mobile browser. If the response becomes positively disposed to the mobile device, remove the site from the list.
> 
> It's not ideal, but if adopted by those operators who insist on using lists (regardless of whether or not the practice is endorsed/shunned by standards bodies) it would certainly alleviate some of the issues faced by content/service providers.
> 
> The aim, however, should be to move in a direction that completely eliminates the need for lists. It is a practice, necessary in certain cases, but I'd hardly describe it as a "best" practice.
> 
> ---Rotan.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group
> Sent: 13 June 2008 08:27
> To: Sullivan, Bryan; Jo Rabin
> Cc: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document
> 
> 
> Hi Jo,
> 
> I 100% share the view of Bryan. For us as an Operator this feature is quite important as long as there is no option to overcome that situation for sites where we do not have any stake holder available.
> 
> Cheers
> Heiko 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sullivan, Bryan [mailto:BS3131@att.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 01:33
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group; public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document
> 
> Jo,
> I don't understand the reluctance to clarify this CT proxy behavior, which will be a configuration feature of CT proxies, at least as AT&T would deploy (and our needs are not so different from other other network operators). Regardless of whether the CT guidelines are silent on it, or specifically forbit it, CT proxy vendors will deploy the features that their customers require. It would be better if W3C would acknowledge the reality of business practice especially given the limitations of semantic methods, but either way we will deploy what we have to, and not be concerned whether this is viewed as a noncompliance to the W3C recommendations. Yet I still hold out hope that the consensus in the group will acknowledge this as a pragmatic solution to the likely lack or non-support of the semantic methods.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:39 AM
> To: Sullivan, Bryan
> Cc: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group; public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document
> 
> Bryan
> 
> Respectfully I have to disagree strongly with this, except in the respect that if we had the ability for a Web site owner to declare their preferences in a single place, then this would be the right way forward.
> 
> Once we have shipped this version of the document hopefully it will be the right time to go ahead and address this as the next high priority task.
> 
> Jo
> 
> On 12/06/2008 12:35, Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
>> Hi Jo,
>> Even if scalability of the manual configuration requirements was an issue for CP's (I'm not sure it is, given the limited number of Operators that serve regions, and the typical relationships that already exist between Operators and CP's), there are are readily deployable means to automate such a process. I could fairly quickly build a web-enabled content management database application that initiates the necessary changes using whatever web form a particular Operator has defined. I'm sure this would not be a significant challenge for CP's and could even be an application provided by the Operator specifically for that purpose, to be used by the CP to manage the CT preferences for their site. 
>>
>> *If* CT proxy deployment becomes a common reality across many Operators (or 3rd-party CT service providers), and realtime/semantic methods for CT proxy control are undefined or not supported by many CP's (leaving them with no other option but using pre-configuration), the standards community could work on standardizing such CT proxy allow/deny list management methods. But I would recommend that we see how the market develops first.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:44 AM
>> To: Sullivan, Bryan
>> Cc: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group; public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Comment on latest CT Guideline Document
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>> The idea that a CP has to be aware of and fill in a simple Web form on every operator's site is exactly the reason that this is bad practice. 
>> It's simply not reasonable or practical from the CP perspective. That's why it's noted in the way it is with the reasons included.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> On 11/06/2008 16:36, Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
>>> Heiko: "allow/deny" are intended as better terminology alternatives 
>>> to "white/black", e.g. more clear as to the intent of the designation
>>>
>>> Jo: the point of including these clarifications is that in some cases the CT proxy will not be able to reliably depend upon semantic means of discovering which sites should and should not be transformed (and how). An allow/deny list is a practical way of supplementing the decision process, and a common practice by WAP proxy/gateway vendors for example. There is certainly a process of list management, that is typically outside standards scope, and the CT operator is responsible for the simplicity of the process (a business decision in the end). It does not have to involve "great difficulty" (a simple web form on a CT proxy operator's developer/CP support site is all that is needed). 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.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:19 AM
>>> To: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group
>>> Cc: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
>>> 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:* ___*heiko.gerlach@vodafone.com*_
>>>> <mailto:heiko.gerlach@vodafone.com>**
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>>> 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 Friday, 13 June 2008 09:36:37 UTC