13:57:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:57:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-bpwg-irc
13:57:02 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:57:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:57:04 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:57:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:57:05 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:57:05 <trackbot-ng> Date: 01 April 2008
13:57:12 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0038.html
13:57:17 <francois> Chair: francois
13:57:24 <francois> Regrets: Bryan, kemp
13:57:33 <francois> Regrets+ MartinJ
13:58:05 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:58:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-bpwg-minutes.html francois
13:58:39 <francois> zakim, code?
13:58:39 <Zakim> the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), francois
13:59:04 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started
13:59:11 <Zakim> +francois
13:59:35 <rob> rob has joined #bpwg
14:00:46 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:01:03 <Zakim> +rob
14:02:03 <Zakim> + +0049211aaaa
14:02:08 <Magnus> Magnus has joined #bpwg
14:02:29 <Magnus> zakim, code?
14:02:30 <Zakim> the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Magnus
14:03:06 <hgerlach> hgerlach has joined #bpwg
14:03:11 <andrews> andrews has joined #bpwg
14:03:20 <Zakim> +SeanP
14:03:23 <matt> matt has joined #bpwg
14:03:28 <Zakim> +??P15
14:03:30 <francois> zakim, aaaa is hgerlach
14:03:30 <Zakim> +hgerlach; got it
14:03:49 <jo> jo has joined #bpwg
14:03:53 <francois> zakim, ??P15 is Magnus
14:03:53 <Zakim> +Magnus; got it
14:03:59 <jo> zakim, code?
14:03:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:04:33 <Zakim> + +0789972aabb
14:04:35 <Zakim> +jo
14:04:49 <andrews> Zakim, aabb is andrews
14:04:49 <Zakim> +andrews; got it
14:05:54 <francois> Scribe: rob
14:05:59 <francois> ScribeNick: rob
14:06:10 <jo> zakim, who is making noise?
14:06:10 <francois> Topic: Targeted schedule
14:06:20 <Zakim> jo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: francois (75%), hgerlach (5%)
14:06:37 <jo> zakim, mute hgerlach
14:06:37 <Zakim> hgerlach should now be muted
14:06:56 <jo> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0038.html
14:07:08 <matt> Present- Matt
14:07:15 <rob> francois: apart from a few issues probably settled today we're ready to publish a "First Working Draft"
14:08:02 <rob> ... aim to resolve during today's call the outstanding issues and arrange an Editor's Meeting
14:08:18 <francois> q?
14:08:37 <francois> Topic: ACTION-685: how to embed original headers (§3.1.4)
14:08:48 <rob> ... could publish First Working Draft in the week after next
14:08:53 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313#d0e528 3.1.4
14:10:00 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0030.html fd's action
14:10:07 <rob> francois: couldn't find a way to echo original header values without breaking things
14:10:47 <jo> +1 to sending X-headers and to adding an editorial note stating we'd prefer not to use this mechanisnm but can't think of any other way
14:11:40 <rob> q+ to say we already have precedent for X-headers in live systems
14:11:40 <jo> q+ to suggest that the app at the server would probably not have access to Warning headers ...
14:11:49 <francois> ack rob
14:11:52 <Zakim> rob, you wanted to say we already have precedent for X-headers in live systems
14:12:50 <francois> ack jo
14:12:50 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to suggest that the app at the server would probably not have access to Warning headers ...
14:13:01 <andrews> q+
14:13:48 <rob> rob: X-headers are deployed live by Novarra and Openwave and their presence is known to the developer community
14:14:19 <francois> ack andrews
14:15:00 <rob> jo: It is a pity we couldn't find a better solution but suggest we accept it as undesirable but still worth recommending
14:15:46 <rob> andrews: supports the X-headers for echoing changed headers
14:16:07 <jo> q+ to say we should stop wringing our hands about this
14:16:16 <francois> ack jo
14:16:16 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to say we should stop wringing our hands about this
14:16:17 <rob> francois: so this means multiple X-headers if multiple headers have been changed?
14:16:27 <hgerlach> q+
14:17:36 <rob> jo: you can't have new HTTP headers without an experimental period, so recommend proceed with X-headers
14:17:48 <francois> ack hgerlach
14:18:18 <rob> hgerlach: need to understand what headers can change and what headers should never change
14:18:44 <rob> francois: in practice it's only User-Agent and Accept
14:19:52 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for 3.1.4, "the proxy must add a X-Original-[original HTTP header name]" and put an editorial note about the fact we'd love to recommend something else but don't see how.
14:20:21 <andrews> andrews has joined #bpwg
14:20:25 <jo> +1 
14:20:52 <jo> scribe: jo
14:21:26 <Magnus> +1
14:21:44 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for 3.1.4, "the proxy must add a X-Original-[original HTTP header name]" and put an editorial note about the fact we'd love to recommend something else but don't see how.
14:22:16 <SeanP> q+
14:22:22 <francois> ack SeanP
14:22:51 <jo> andrew: should it be X-Device like Novarra has it?
14:23:08 <jo> seanP: Either way seems reasonable to me
14:23:25 <jo> rob: maybe developers will expect X-Device as it is already in use
14:24:10 <jo> jo: i'd prefer something like X-received
14:24:27 <jo> francois: we have a number to choose from
14:24:41 <jo> ... I don't like device but don't really care
14:24:55 <jo> ... would prefer original or received?
14:24:57 <francois> x-device?
14:24:57 <SeanP> +1
14:25:04 <jo> [straw poll]
14:25:08 <rob> rob has joined #bpwg
14:25:31 <jo> rob and andrew also prefer x-device (fallen off IRC)
14:25:56 <jo> andrew: take jo's point x-received might be truer
14:26:40 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for 3.1.4, "the proxy must add a X-Device-[original HTTP header name]" and put an editorial note about the fact we'd love to recommend something else but don't see how and a note about the choice of "device".
14:26:44 <jo> francois: can you live with that Jo
14:27:06 <jo> jo: really doesn't matter just lets add a ntoe saying it is a provisional choice
14:27:17 <SeanP> +1
14:27:22 <rob> +1
14:27:32 <andrews> +1
14:28:09 <jo> hgerlach: we asked that we did not define our own headers so we should make sure that these headers are unique like containing CT or some other label
14:28:28 <jo> ... so they are not used by other applications for different purposes
14:28:46 <jo> francois: take your point but they use could be more generally applicable
14:29:43 <jo> jo: suggest taht we take resolution and move on as headers shouldn't be bounded by a presumed application
14:29:56 <SeanP> q+
14:30:02 <jo> fd: well these ones are already in use so why don't we just do this
14:30:30 <jo> hg: we have lots of X- headers in the vodafone network
14:31:33 <jo> ... not a major issue to change headers think the headers need only to be used for the single purpose
14:31:35 <francois> ack SeanP
14:32:03 <jo> seanp: didn't come across any collisions with the X-Device headers
14:32:34 <jo> ... to the point about which other headers might be changed: Accept-Charset and Accept-Encoding for example
14:32:58 <francois> RESOLUTION: for 3.1.4, "the proxy must add a X-Device-[original HTTP header name]" and put an editorial note about the fact we'd love to recommend something else but don't see how and a note about the choice of "device"
14:33:02 <jo> fd: right let's make a note about the name and take the resolution
14:33:13 <francois> Topic: Proxy response to User Agent (§3.4)
14:33:18 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313#sec-Proxy-Response 3.4
14:33:21 <jo> Topic: Proxy response to User Agent
14:33:40 <jo> s/Topic: Proxy response to User Agent//
14:34:17 <jo> fd: suggest we leave this list alone for nwo and come back to it in a later step
14:34:22 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: 3.4 list of heuristics - leave it as it is for the time being
14:34:27 <jo> s/nwo/now/
14:34:33 <jo> +1
14:34:37 <rob> +1
14:34:39 <hgerlach> +1
14:34:58 <SeanP> +1
14:35:01 <andrews> +1
14:35:05 <francois> RESOLUTION: 3.4 list of heuristics - leave it as it is for the time being
14:35:15 <jo> zakim, mute hgerlach
14:35:15 <Zakim> hgerlach should now be muted
14:35:31 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0033.html Martin's text for ACTION-717
14:35:52 <jo> fd: Martin sent some text under ACTION-717
14:35:52 <andrews> +1
14:36:24 <hgerlach> hgerlach has joined #bpwg
14:36:25 <jo> ... clarifying that it is not allowed to break the end to end security
14:36:35 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: accept Martin's text for ACTION-717
14:36:41 <andrews> +1
14:36:42 <jo> +1
14:36:51 <SeanP> +1
14:37:01 <francois> RESOLUTION: accept Martin's text for ACTION-717
14:37:08 <francois> Close ACTION-717
14:37:08 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-717 Propose some alternate text for HTTPs rewrite and "must provide the option to avoid transformation" closed
14:37:18 <jo> scribe: rob
14:37:23 <francois> ScribeNick: rob
14:38:10 <rob> francois: remaining topic on dangerous content is a bit outdated
14:39:27 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for dangerous content, something along the lines of:
14:39:27 <francois> "[when dangerous] the proxy MAY warn the user, and give the user the choice to see a transformed version of the resource"?
14:39:29 <rob> ... suggest if there is a Cache-Control: no-transform but CT-proxy determines content won't work on the handset that the CT-proxy should ask the user?
14:39:38 <SeanP> q+
14:39:42 <francois> ack SeanP
14:40:25 <hgerlach> q+
14:41:05 <francois> ack hgerlach
14:41:10 <jo> ... instead of forwarding the dangerous content MAY send a page with links to both transformed and non-tranformed versions ...
14:41:25 <rob> q+ to say sending a "do you or don't you?" interstitial is definitely *not* a no-transform
14:41:38 <rob> hgerlach: what is dangerous content?
14:42:26 <rob> francois: eg a page that is too big and will cause out-of-memory in the phone browser
14:42:42 <jo> [ref HGerlach's comments, virus scanning is surely not in scope?]
14:43:02 <rob> hgerlach: does a virus-scanner do this?
14:43:57 <rob> francois: I think it's out of scope unless there is a clear incompatibility
14:44:03 <francois> ack rob
14:44:03 <Zakim> rob, you wanted to say sending a "do you or don't you?" interstitial is definitely *not* a no-transform
14:46:01 <rob> rob: sending a "do you or don't you?" interstitial is definitely *not* a no-transform and this could break an application if the content is saved to memory
14:46:04 <francois> q?
14:46:09 <jo> +1 to "no transform" means "no-transform"
14:46:15 <SeanP> q+
14:46:21 <francois> ack SeanP
14:46:36 <rob> francois: yes, the CT-proxy needs to be cautious about this
14:48:00 <jo> q+ if one could tell what was dangerous content then I'd agree with SeanP, the problems seems to be that one can't tell well enough in general
14:48:01 <rob> seanp: if it is dangerous content then something must be done to fix it, obviously the CT-proxy needs to be cautious about altering it
14:48:08 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for dangerous content, something along the lines of:
14:48:08 <francois>  "[when dangerous] the proxy MAY warn the user, and give the user the choice to see a transformed version of the resource", with emphasis on the MAY to say that it may be "dangerous"
14:48:19 <jo> q+to say if one could tell what was dangerous content then I'd agree with SeanP, the problems seems to be that one can't tell well enough in general
14:48:35 <francois> ack jo
14:48:35 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to say if one could tell what was dangerous content then I'd agree with SeanP, the problems seems to be that one can't tell well enough in general
14:49:23 <rob> jo: should be absolutely only if the user wants the CT-proxy to correct dnagerous content
14:49:56 <rob> ... and as usual the users' preferences can be persistent
14:51:20 <rob> ... even the interstitial wil break an application if there is no user to see the page
14:51:47 <rob> ... so the user's decision needs to be "prior consent"
14:52:49 <jo> "with the users explicit prior consent [when dangerous] instead of forwarding the dangerous content MAY warn the user and send a page with links to both transformed and non-tranformed versions"
14:53:41 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: with the users explicit prior consent, when dangerous content is detected, and when using a browser, instead of forwarding the dangerous content MAY warn the user and send a page with links to both transformed and non-tranformed versions
14:54:28 <jo> dangerous that may cause mal-operation of the users device
14:55:08 <jo> s/dangerous that may cause mal-operation of the users device//
14:55:08 <rob> hgerlach: should we use the word "dangerous"?
14:55:17 <SeanP> I'm OK with the term "dangerous"
14:55:31 <francois> +1
14:55:35 <rob> francois: the term is defined clearly
14:55:36 <andrews> +1
14:55:38 <hgerlach> +1
14:55:52 <SeanP> +1
14:55:53 <Magnus> +1
14:55:58 <jo> +1
14:56:25 <francois> RESOLUTION: with the users explicit prior consent, when dangerous content is detected, and when using a browser, instead of forwarding the dangerous content MAY warn the user and send a page with links to both transformed and non-tranformed versions dangerous that may cause mal-operation of the users device
14:56:53 <francois> Topic: Proxy Receipt and Forwarding of Response from Server (§3.3)
14:59:22 <rob> francois: 3.1.4 says if the headers are altered the CT-proxy must be prepared to vary the headers
14:59:24 <SeanP> q+
15:00:01 <rob> jo: this isn't clear
15:00:39 <rob> ... if you don't get a Vary in the response you don't know to reissue the request differently
15:01:30 <rob> ... the point of sending a Vary is to avoid caching in situations where it is inappropriate to cache
15:02:14 <Zakim> -Magnus
15:05:35 <francois> Topic: Publication as FPWD
15:05:58 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: editors' meeting tomorrow, resolutions on Thursday's call, reviewing and then publication
15:07:38 <francois> RESOLUTION: let's try: editors' meeting tomorrow, resolutions on Thursday's call, reviewing and then publication
15:07:49 <Zakim> -andrews
15:07:49 <hgerlach> bye:-)
15:07:51 <Zakim> -hgerlach
15:07:55 <Zakim> -jo
15:07:57 <Zakim> -francois
15:08:02 <Zakim> -rob
15:08:02 <Zakim> -SeanP
15:08:02 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended
15:08:03 <francois> Zakim, list attendees
15:08:03 <Zakim> Attendees were francois, rob, +0049211aaaa, SeanP, hgerlach, Magnus, +0789972aabb, jo, andrews
15:08:07 <Zakim> sorry, francois, I don't know what conference this is
15:08:08 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:08:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:08:09 <andrews> quit bye
15:08:15 <francois> francois has joined #bpwg
15:18:37 <matt> matt has joined #bpwg
16:34:05 <francois> RRSAgent, bye
16:34:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items