15:00:04 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 15:00:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-bpwg-irc 15:00:51 hgerlach has joined #bpwg 15:01:31 what conferences? 15:01:43 zakim, what conferences? 15:01:43 I see WS_DBWG()10:00AM, Team_(wai)14:30Z, MWI_BPWG(BCTF)10:00AM, IA_Team()10:00AM, MM_InkML()9:00AM active 15:01:45 also scheduled at this time are SW_DAWG()9:30AM, T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM, TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM 15:01:54 zakim, this will be MWI_BPWG 15:01:54 ok, francois, I see MWI_BPWG(BCTF)10:00AM already started 15:02:05 Chair: francois 15:02:15 + +0207287aabb 15:02:16 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Feb/0048.html 15:02:17 - +0789972aaaa 15:02:21 zakim, code? 15:02:21 the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), francois 15:02:37 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:02:42 zakim, aabb is rob 15:02:42 +rob; got it 15:02:52 + +0789972aacc 15:02:54 Bryan has joined #bpwg 15:02:57 + +049238aadd 15:03:08 zakim, aadd is me 15:03:12 +francois; got it 15:03:20 SeanP has joined #bpwg 15:03:32 +??P13 15:03:35 +Bryan_Sullivan 15:03:49 zakim, ??p13 is me 15:03:49 +DKA; got it 15:04:00 [Heiko] hi Guys, I have problems accessing the conf bridge 15:04:26 + +1.630.414.aaee 15:04:43 it hangs up but I am just retrying 15:04:51 zakim, aaee is SeanP 15:04:52 +SeanP; got it 15:04:53 zakim, code? 15:04:53 the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 15:04:57 zakim, code? 15:04:57 the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), francois 15:05:03 zakim, who's on the call? 15:05:03 On the phone I see rob, +0789972aacc, francois, DKA, Bryan_Sullivan, SeanP 15:05:16 now it rang and kicked me out without asking for the code 15:05:27 + +0208995aaff 15:05:36 Bryan has joined #bpwg 15:05:38 zakim, aaff is me 15:05:38 +jo; got it 15:05:43 zakim, aacc is AndrewS 15:05:43 +AndrewS; got it 15:05:49 + +049211aagg 15:05:55 got it:-) 15:06:06 zakim, aagg is hgerlach 15:06:06 +hgerlach; got it 15:07:06 I can scribe 15:07:23 (but I'm not fussed) 15:07:35 ScribeNick: DKA 15:07:40 Scribe: Dan 15:07:59 Topic: Intro 15:08:27 Francois: want to emphasize where we should be going. Our goal is to present a draft to the working group if possible before the next f2f and then hopefully come to fpwd. 15:08:39 Francois: most important thing to do right now is to ground our guidelines on reality. 15:09:04 François: We never go into details [in the document] 15:09:30 Francois: The main discussion we should have is the one we're having on the mailing list. 15:09:55 Francois: Grounding on reality: 15:10:52 Francois: If we look at CT proxies from a long term perspective, it's beyond the scope of our guidelines. In the future we'll have to use new technologies that are not available today for CT proxies. Possibly related to DIAl, possibly related to OMA work... 15:11:07 Francois: In our BP working group we are not chartered to create those new technologies. 15:13:00 Francois: I see two ways we can go. The first way is to see the CT proxy as a proxy - as an intermediary between the server and the end user. If we do that, the CT proxy will have to comply with our guidelines. In practice, many of the CT proxies actually rely on practices imposed by the carrier and would not accept to obey these guidelines [e.g. complying with no-transform]. Fear is that they would not be followed therefore useless. 15:13:05 q+ 15:13:11 Q+ 15:13:51 ack b 15:13:51 Francois: Second way would be to say that the CT proxy is the carrier's beast - and it's more like a user-process extension and in that sense it gives us more flexibility. 15:13:55 ack bryan 15:15:01 Bryan: I think the goal of the taskforce is useful. There are a number of things we should consider. At the core, we have to think - are we trying to define a service or improve an existing service - I think it's the latter. So if that's true are we trying to improve the oepratings of that service or improve the user experience of such services. Again I think it's the latter. 15:15:32 ack jo 15:15:36 Bryan: if we concentrate on user experience for CT experiences then we can do a lot of good without defining new technologies. 15:16:44 Jo: It seems to be that this is about helping content providers who have taken the trouble to comply with the BPs. They've created an experience for the user that the user then perceives. If their efforts are thwarted by intermediaries then BPs are called into question because they are thwarted by proxies that say "we know better." 15:17:11 Jo: Conten provider neeeds to know that the proxy is there and the proxy needs to know if the content provider says "do not transform." 15:17:30 Jo: I agree that trying to define gradations of transformation won't wash. 15:18:19 Jo: what we should focus on now is not percisely whether CT proxies transform but we can say what the vocabulary is and how the proxies should behave given use of these vocabularies. 15:18:54 Jo: We should provide a vocabulary between content providers and transformation engines which they can use if they choose to. 15:18:59 +1 to jo 15:19:13 +1 too 15:20:50 Francois: I think we're going in a good direction. I'm asking you guys - would that be realistic, to descrive our CT proxy as the intermediary and stick to that? We will have to worry about implementation at some point [in the document lifecycle]. Can we take the resolution that the CT proxy is an intermediary and its only aim is to help content not designed for mobile browsing be converted for mobile devices... 15:21:17 q+ 15:21:39 ack bryan 15:22:37 Bryan: I am fine with the scope. 15:22:38 Q+ 15:22:47 q+ 15:22:51 q+ 15:22:57 Francois: I am worried that our scope is too small and therefore won't be respected. 15:22:57 ack hgerl 15:23:43 +q 15:23:48 ack jo 15:23:49 Heiko: We shouldn't tell vendors how to do the transformation (from a user experience POV) but outline the bounderies - such as no-transform and vary headers. 15:23:55 q+ andrews 15:24:07 Jo: I don't think we've set out to say how to do this - I agree with Heiko. 15:24:37 Jo: If we want to be more pedantic, we can say : "what the transformation proxy vendor perceives as enhanced user experience." 15:24:43 q+ 15:25:22 ack bryan 15:25:24 Jo: In response to Francois, if we produce something and it is ignored then it's a shame. The alternative, however, is to do nothing and that is not acceptable. The best we can do is try and encourage people to see the sense of what we're trying to do. 15:25:28 +1 to Jo 15:25:32 q- 15:25:38 Bryan: I don't think we are going to produce something that will be ignored. 15:25:57 Bryan: The question of whether this becomes subsumed into a proxy layer - we don't have to concern ourselves with that. 15:26:52 Bryan: Where there is an important interaction between the requirements, it's useful to call it out. In this case, we can talk about the improvement of the user experience. How can we use existing technology to make the CT proxy aware of what it should do. 15:26:56 q? 15:27:02 ack SeanP 15:27:52 Sean: There do seem to be cases where operators want to adapt non-mobile pages even if a mobile page exists... 15:27:54 q+ to say that we don't advise CPs how to break stuff into small pages so we are probably not in a position to advise that to CT providers 15:28:53 q+ to add that the CT provider should not subvert the intention of the CP to provide a specifically mobile experience 15:29:08 Francois: I wanted to make sure that when the content provider says "no transform" that this should be accepted and implemented in practice. We give the content providers some power. 15:29:16 ack jo 15:29:16 jo, you wanted to say that we don't advise CPs how to break stuff into small pages so we are probably not in a position to advise that to CT providers and to add that the CT 15:29:20 ... provider should not subvert the intention of the CP to provide a specifically mobile experience 15:29:40 Jo: In answer to Bryan: I think it's a laudable goal to say how to break things up but I don't think we can do it. 15:30:03 Jo: I would prefer if we stay clear of that right now. 15:30:04 q+ 15:30:39 Jo: I think at least for now we should [just leave the process of content transformation up to the vendors]. 15:31:00 +1 to Jo's point about breaking up pages 15:31:43 Jo: I believe that if a cotnent provider has followed best practice to provide a mobile experience and taken into account what we say about users choosing what experience they want then a content transforming proxy should not subvert that. The main purpose of these guidelines should be to help in building a mobile "aware" web. 15:32:14 q? 15:32:24 ack Bryan 15:33:19 Bryan: I didn't mean we should detail how a CT proxy should break up pages - what I meant is that there are aspects of that we can say - like "if you're going to transform a page into smaller pages then you should give the user the choice of seeing the original." 15:34:57 Jo: I'm hearing we have substantial agreement : we stop worrying about what we can't do in HTTP even if we think they're desirable and start talking about what we can do something about in HTTP plus some service aspects that may be desirable in a transforming. We can also talk about how user agents are presented. 15:35:11 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT-proxy is an intermediary, transforming the content with a view to making it more suitable for mobile presentation. 15:35:34 +1 15:35:40 +1 15:35:44 +1 15:35:47 +1 15:35:50 +1 15:35:56 RESOLUTION: CT-proxy is an intermediary, transforming the content with a view to making it more suitable for mobile presentation. 15:36:02 +1 15:36:06 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: grounded on existing technologies, let's not try to tweak HTTP to meet our specific needs, even though we would like to do it. 15:36:40 +1 15:36:44 q+ to mention extensions to UA for example 15:36:53 ack jo 15:36:53 jo, you wanted to mention extensions to UA for example 15:37:43 Jo: I wouldn't want to rule out doing what some CT proxies do at the moment by adding something onto the UA header. 15:37:59 q+ in resolution 1, does "making it more suitable" exclude "how to do it"; i.e. are we just defining a term here 15:38:09 q+ 15:38:17 q+ to check use of custom headers e.g. x-... 15:38:23 q+, in resolution 1 does "making it more suitable" exclude "how to do it" i.e. are we just defining a term here 15:38:36 q+ 15:38:41 Francois: I think there will be an exception to the rule wrt user agents string manipulation. 15:38:56 ack SeanP 15:39:02 Francois: Apart from that, I don't think we should create new headers or use cache control extensions. 15:39:14 Sean: I want to understand what the definition of "tweak" is. 15:39:36 Sean: Other question - would not tweaking mean not including extension headers? 15:40:05 Francois: I think extensions to headers is "tweaking" but for other headers there needs to be an "exception." 15:40:27 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: recommendation will be grounded on existing technologies with as few exceptions as possible 15:40:31 q? 15:40:34 Sean: I think we should include that exception in the resolution. 15:40:36 ack andrews 15:40:36 andrews, you wanted to check use of custom headers e.g. x-... 15:41:29 Andrew: in the last conf call we discussed the use of custom headers (x-). I see there is a use for them - they are used exensively in our WAP environment today and we've used them in the transformation engine. Does that still fit within your constraint. 15:42:02 Francois: Yes, that is the exception I'm talking about. But we should have only one - combining all the information into one and only one header. If we can stick to that it would be good. My POV. 15:42:12 q+ to say that X- headers can only be proposed on the basis that they are on some kind of rfc trac process 15:42:22 ack Bryan 15:44:01 Bryan: The usefulness of the recommendations will be limited if we can't define recommendations around the user experience (rather than just solving the problem of non-transparency). 15:44:44 Francois: if we want to address the user experience, we would have to say that the CT proxy is more on the user side and it "knows better" than the content provider. 15:45:36 Bryan: If we're just trying to say that the proxy should get out of the way in certain circumstances then the document's going to be very short but possibly this will be OK. 15:46:01 Francois: the resolution we just took means they won't be much in the guidelines. 15:46:24 ack jo 15:46:24 jo, you wanted to say that X- headers can only be proposed on the basis that they are on some kind of rfc trac process 15:46:24 q+ to suggest the document could still make recommendations of UE. 15:47:07 Jo: We should only propose use of an X- header if we can also say we are proposing it through the rfc process. 15:47:30 Jo: [worried about use of the word "tweak"] 15:47:53 ack dka 15:47:53 DKA, you wanted to suggest the document could still make recommendations of UE. 15:48:34 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: recommendation will be grounded on existing technologies with as few exceptions as possible but specifically not cache-control extensions 15:48:56 q+ 15:49:41 +1 for proposal 15:49:56 +1 15:51:41 ack bryan 15:51:48 DKA: Suggest UE issues could be recommendations (non normative) 15:52:03 DKA: Suggesting that x- headers should be used if rfc is proposed through BPWG 15:52:12 Jo: Would need to be through UWA group. 15:52:28 the latter 15:52:40 Bryan: [on scope] is the scope purely on non-transparency or is it to improve operation of transforming proxies? 15:53:38 Bryan: the likelyhood that you'll get both content providers and servers to cooperate on the http header level is slim but with using existing headers becomes more reasonable. 15:53:40 q? 15:54:35 Bryan: if we want to set lamp-posts down the road and recommend that to the industry but by the time we get there it may be beside the point because UAs will be more full featured. 15:54:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:54:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-bpwg-minutes.html matt 15:54:55 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: recommendation will be grounded (with as few exeptions as possible) on existing technologies, and will specifically not employ cache-control extensions 15:55:03 rrsagent, make logs public 15:55:05 Bryan: as I understood the scope the resolution is we should fix the problem but not build new services around ct proxy behaviors. 15:55:07 Francois: yes. 15:55:26 q? 15:55:45 +1 15:55:48 +1 15:55:51 +1 15:55:52 +1 15:55:54 zakim, who is talking? 15:55:54 +1 15:55:55 q+ 15:55:58 1+ 15:56:03 ack bryan 15:56:05 DKA, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: francois (35%), Bryan_Sullivan (25%), jo (4%), hgerlach (20%) 15:56:15 RESOLUTION: recommendation will be grounded (with as few exeptions as possible) on existing technologies, and will specifically not employ cache-control extensions 15:56:22 zakim, mute hgerlach 15:56:22 hgerlach should now be muted 15:56:48 Francois: I've been having nightmares about these guidelines. 15:57:06 sorry for that guys here are 2 other telcos running 15:57:25 Francois: The right direction is to do something simple. Content adaptation is bigger than http options and is already being addressed by other groups. 15:59:41 Francois: I think we're now going in the same direction. I propose that we now take a look at the draft as homework and that given the approach we try to propose some new wording. Mostly we need to remove things fromt he existing draft. 16:00:15 Jo: I will produce a new draft with editorial comments reflecting decision points that need to be made but stripping some interactions out. 16:00:48 ACTION: Jo to redraft CT Guidleines based on conversation on this call 16:00:48 Created ACTION-661 - Redraft CT Guidleines based on conversation on this call [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-02-26]. 16:00:53 Jo: I will try to get that out in a couple of days. 16:01:59 Francois: we could review it in BP call next week [28th] 16:02:34 Francois: [let's quit while we're ahead] 16:02:46 thanks, bye! 16:02:48 -jo 16:02:49 -Bryan_Sullivan 16:02:50 -rob 16:02:52 -francois 16:02:53 -AndrewS 16:02:53 rob has left #bpwg 16:02:54 -hgerlach 16:02:56 -SeanP 16:02:57 -DKA 16:03:00 MWI_BPWG(BCTF)10:00AM has ended 16:03:02 Attendees were +0789972aaaa, +0207287aabb, rob, +0789972aacc, +049238aadd, francois, Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, +1.630.414.aaee, SeanP, +0208995aaff, jo, AndrewS, +049211aagg, hgerlach 16:03:39 rrsagent, do your stuff! 16:03:39 I'm logging. I don't understand 'do your stuff!', DKA. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:05:02 zakim, list attendees 16:05:08 sorry, francois, I don't know what conference this is 16:05:19 zakim, draft minutes 16:05:24 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:05:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:05:28 I don't understand 'draft minutes', francois 16:10:32 DKA has joined #bpwg 18:07:20 Zakim has left #bpwg