IRC log of bpwg on 2009-01-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:28:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:28:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-bpwg-irc
14:28:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:28:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:28:22 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:28:22 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:28:23 [trackbot]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:28:24 [trackbot]
Date: 20 January 2009
14:28:40 [jo]
jo has joined #bpwg
14:29:02 [jo]
zakim, code?
14:29:02 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:29:12 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started
14:29:19 [Zakim]
+adam
14:29:23 [Sangwhan_Moon]
Sangwhan_Moon has joined #bpwg
14:29:36 [francois]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0040.html
14:29:41 [francois]
Chair: Jo
14:29:48 [Zakim]
+jo
14:29:55 [francois]
Regrets: BruceLawson, tom, rob, manrique, nacho, abel, miguel
14:30:36 [Zakim]
+Francois
14:30:58 [Zakim]
+??P10
14:31:15 [Sangwhan_Moon]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:31:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see adam, jo, Francois, ??P10
14:31:22 [Sangwhan_Moon]
zakim, ??P10 is me
14:31:22 [Zakim]
+Sangwhan_Moon; got it
14:31:58 [Zakim]
+Jeff
14:33:02 [jeffs]
http://www.c-span.org/politics/c-span-inauguration-hub.aspx
14:34:23 [Sangwhan_Moon]
zakim, agenda?
14:34:23 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
14:34:40 [Zakim]
+??P12
14:34:42 [jo]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0040.html
14:34:45 [dom]
zakim, ??P12 is me
14:34:45 [Zakim]
+dom; got it
14:34:48 [dom]
zakim, mute me
14:34:48 [Zakim]
dom should now be muted
14:35:17 [Zakim]
+??P13
14:35:22 [yeliz]
zakim, ??P13 is yeliz
14:35:22 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
14:35:31 [jo]
zakim, pick a victim
14:35:31 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose yeliz
14:35:34 [francois]
Scribe: francois
14:35:37 [francois]
ScribeNick: francois
14:35:51 [francois]
Topic: Poll on possible next F2F
14:35:54 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
14:35:54 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
14:36:00 [EdC]
EdC has joined #bpwg
14:36:08 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-Possible-F2F-March-2009/results Results of the questionnaire
14:36:16 [francois]
jo: it's going to be in London
14:36:19 [francois]
... comments?
14:36:21 [francois]
q+
14:36:25 [francois]
ack francois
14:36:26 [jo]
ack f
14:37:12 [francois]
francois: wonder if Dan can join
14:37:13 [Zakim]
+EdC
14:37:21 [francois]
jo: yes, he answered the questionnaire
14:37:37 [francois]
... OK, so next F2F will be in London 18-20 March 2009
14:37:49 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:38:04 [francois]
francois: any location?
14:38:20 [francois]
jo: I think Dan proposed to host it
14:38:29 [francois]
adam: It's possible that Google can host it as well.
14:38:38 [Zakim]
+SeanP
14:38:42 [francois]
Topic: Update on Mobile Accessibility
14:38:52 [francois]
jo: Alan posted an update. Self-explanatory.
14:38:53 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
14:38:53 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
14:39:02 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0038.html Alan's email
14:39:03 [jo]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0038.html Alan's update
14:39:08 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
14:39:08 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
14:39:08 [francois]
jo: Yeliz, something to add?
14:39:13 [francois]
yeliz: nothing to add, no.
14:39:21 [francois]
Topic: MWABP aka BP2
14:39:38 [francois]
adam: Main thing I've done is to go through the doc and integrate your comments jo.
14:39:57 [francois]
... In terms of editorial comments, I'm fine.
14:40:20 [francois]
... In terms of broader comments, this translates into actions to investigate your points.
14:40:31 [francois]
... Maybe we can raise issues on each of them
14:40:45 [francois]
jo: Why don't we raise issues, and see how to action them?
14:40:54 [francois]
adam: OK, I'll do it by the end of the week.
14:41:44 [francois]
... section 3.2.1 is asking for more advice on security.
14:42:06 [francois]
... I'd appreciate if we could get the advice of the Team, and in particular security folks.
14:42:48 [jeffs]
hope security folks take a good hard long look at this... is worrisome
14:42:52 [EdC]
The practice seems to provide authentication, but no confidentiality, nor integrity. (at first sight).
14:43:15 [jo]
action: daoust to contact WSC team (Thomas) to obtain a view on the secure hash mechanism discussed under 3.2.1 in BP2
14:43:15 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-899 - Contact WSC team (Thomas) to obtain a view on the secure hash mechanism discussed under 3.2.1 in BP2 [on François Daoust - due 2009-01-27].
14:43:22 [francois]
jo: we should probably go back to Thomas and folks of WSC WG.
14:43:30 [francois]
francois: OK. Will do that.
14:43:47 [francois]
jo: Anything else on BP2?
14:44:01 [francois]
q+
14:44:05 [jo]
ack f
14:44:34 [Sangwhan_Moon]
I will check if our browser security team has anything particular to provide for feedback for 899
14:45:39 [francois]
francois: Dan mentioned the idea that we could have an editorial meeting on Monday 2 Feb 2009 afternoon in London on MWABP. I'll probably be there.
14:45:44 [francois]
jo: OK, good idea.
14:45:48 [dom]
ACTION-896?
14:45:48 [trackbot]
ACTION-896 -- François Daoust to stimulate discussion on the SHOULD NOT question ref mobile heuristics -- due 2009-01-20 -- OPEN
14:45:48 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/896
14:45:52 [francois]
Topic: CT issues
14:45:57 [jo]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/896 ACTION-896
14:47:01 [francois]
francois: I can just apologize. I haven't done my action. Sean replied.
14:47:54 [francois]
SeanP: I replied with a list of exceptions to the rule. I mentioned the possibility for users to choose for the transcoder to transcode responses even in that case.
14:48:04 [dom]
but isn't the CT proxy on the network and thus would catch requests to other non-mobile sites?
14:48:30 [francois]
... One example: a Web page that links to non-mobile Web pages, users may want to see the non-mobile pages transformed.
14:49:09 [dom]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2009Jan/0031.html Sean's proposal on interfering with mobile sites
14:49:51 [francois]
jo: I think we should raise this kind of stuff as real issues
14:49:57 [EdC]
I answered in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0021.html - basically this seems to fall into the scheme of users specifying they want a transformed experience.
14:51:17 [francois]
q+
14:51:27 [jo]
ACTION: jo to raise issues on inconclusive CT threads once the new draft of CT is prepared
14:51:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-900 - Raise issues on inconclusive CT threads once the new draft of CT is prepared [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-01-27].
14:52:31 [dom]
q+ to ask about CT-on-network
14:52:40 [jo]
ack f
14:52:57 [francois]
francois: wonder if we can have a quick overview of points of divergence. My understanding is that the only remaining one is this case where users may want CT-proxies to transform mobile Web pages. Am I missing something?
14:53:07 [francois]
SeanP: it sounds to be the case.
14:53:39 [francois]
... Eduardo replied.
14:53:59 [francois]
jo: Could you raise a formal issue on where you think the discussion is, Sean?
14:54:07 [dom]
q?
14:54:15 [francois]
... Threads start to be a little difficult to follow.
14:54:28 [jo]
action: patterson to raise issue the thread he started on transforming mobile content entitled "RE: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009"
14:54:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-901 - Raise issue the thread he started on transforming mobile content entitled \"RE: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009\" [on Sean Patterson - due 2009-01-27].
14:55:00 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/new Issue creator
14:55:01 [dom]
q?
14:55:06 [dom]
ack me
14:55:08 [Zakim]
dom, you wanted to ask about CT-on-network
14:55:49 [francois]
dom: I was a bit curious about your point Sean on non-mobile pages linked from mobile pages. Wouldn't the CT-proxy catch the following request and behave accordingly?
14:57:17 [Zakim]
-Jeff
14:57:43 [francois]
SeanP: You may either look at the request for clues or at the response for clues. That's kind of what I had in mind. For CT-proxies that work in linked mode, a page that is not transformed doesn't go through the proxy anymore, and the non-mobile page cannot be transformed.
14:57:53 [francois]
dom: is linked-mode the only or default mode?
14:58:03 [francois]
SeanP: we have both types of deployment.
14:58:37 [francois]
dom: Well, in that case, we could enforce the rule on deployments that behave as real proxies, not in the linked-mode case.
14:59:02 [dom]
s/we could enforce/we could at least/
14:59:04 [francois]
SeanP: ok, there may still be the problem with the toolbar problem.
14:59:10 [dom]
s/least/least enforce/
14:59:20 [francois]
dom: I think that's a separate discussion.
14:59:27 [francois]
jo: Something else?
14:59:27 [dom]
s/not in the linked-mode case/if impossible in the linked-mode case/
14:59:31 [dom]
zakim, mute me
14:59:31 [Zakim]
dom should now be muted
14:59:40 [francois]
Topic: CT - X- HTTP Headers
14:59:54 [francois]
EdC: I haven't completed the action entirely. First results on the mailing-list.
15:00:29 [francois]
... The interesting thing is that I haven't found anything truly concrete on X- header fields, nor anything on deprecation of fields
15:00:51 [francois]
... except in RFC3864.
15:01:03 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0052.html EdC's first results
15:01:21 [francois]
EdC: I found an extensive discussion on IETF lists.
15:01:27 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
15:01:34 [francois]
... but could not really determine the outcome of that.
15:01:56 [francois]
... I intend to send a mail to IETF.
15:02:15 [francois]
... In the meantime, if anyone has any pointer to provide, I'm interested!
15:02:39 [francois]
jo: I thought X- header fields were governed by a separate RFC, but this may actually be a legend.
15:02:42 [dom]
ack me
15:02:46 [Zakim]
+achuter
15:02:53 [dom]
zakim, mute me
15:02:53 [Zakim]
dom should now be muted
15:03:01 [francois]
dom: I'll see if I can find something.
15:03:05 [achuter]
zakim, mute me
15:03:05 [Zakim]
achuter should now be muted
15:03:05 [francois]
q+
15:03:10 [jo]
ack f
15:04:05 [dom]
RFC 2169 ?
15:04:46 [francois]
francois: just to remind I asked for advice within W3C. No mention to RFC on X- header fields, but I was told one cannot register X- fields.
15:04:57 [francois]
jo: OK, right, let's continue the search.
15:05:14 [francois]
Topic: HTTPS Link Re Writing
15:05:40 [francois]
jo: Rob and Tom are active participants in that discussion and neither are on the call today.
15:06:14 [francois]
... What's been much on my mind here, is that we were asked to review the OPEC draft.
15:06:20 [francois]
s/OPEC/OPES
15:06:56 [jo]
-> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3238 OPES
15:07:29 [francois]
jo: We need to keep that in mind, and make sure we're compliant with it.
15:07:58 [francois]
francois: didn't we review the spec before?
15:08:48 [francois]
jo: yes, but not really with HTTPS in mind
15:08:55 [SeanP]
q+
15:09:25 [francois]
francois: what I recall is that, in short, agreement from both ends was better, but that agreement from one end was enough.
15:09:34 [dom]
RFC 822 has the stuff about X- headers, AFAICT: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc822/#z26 "extension-field = <Any field which is defined in a document published as a formal extension to this specification; none will have names beginning with the string "X-">
15:09:49 [francois]
jo: yes, but I think there was a need to have an explicit agreement.
15:09:57 [jo]
-> http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcsearch.pl rfc search
15:09:59 [dom]
(thus an X- header cannot be considered as a formal MIME header)
15:10:06 [jo]
enter "OPES" to find all references
15:10:30 [dom]
ack me
15:10:43 [francois]
jo: Do you want to comment on X- header fields?
15:11:12 [francois]
dom: yes. Apparently, the grammar defined in RFC822 forbids header fields that start with "X-" headers.
15:11:20 [dom]
zakim, mute me
15:11:20 [Zakim]
dom should now be muted
15:11:27 [francois]
jo: OK. Thanks for the pointer, dom.
15:11:41 [francois]
jo: Back to HTTPS links rewriting.
15:12:59 [francois]
... any idea to move forward?
15:14:01 [francois]
francois: I'd love to see the issue rationalized. The discussion covers many aspects. Hard to focus, follow and resolve.
15:14:14 [francois]
SeanP: Quick question: how did OPES come into the discussion?
15:14:25 [jo]
action: jo to summarise current discussions on https link re writing
15:14:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-902 - Summarise current discussions on https link re writing [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-01-27].
15:14:35 [francois]
jo: we received a last call from the IAB asking us to review the specification.
15:15:04 [jo]
IAB Said: In its preview and review of OPES work, the IAB expressed its concerns about privacy, control, monitoring, and accountability of such services in RFC 3238 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3238 ].
15:15:09 [EdC]
There is a dozen RFC related to OPES at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/opes !
15:15:35 [francois]
jo: Anything else on HTTPS links rewriting?
15:15:36 [francois]
q+
15:15:42 [francois]
ack SeanP
15:15:50 [francois]
ack francois
15:17:25 [francois]
francois: just wanted to raise the fact that it's not only HTTPS links rewriting. It's HTTPS and links rewriting, combined or not.
15:17:28 [achuter]
zakim, unmute me
15:17:28 [Zakim]
achuter should no longer be muted
15:17:49 [francois]
jo: OK. And I remember Eduardo posted a thorough analysis on that. Thanks!
15:17:58 [EdC]
q+
15:18:00 [francois]
Topic: Feedback to Web Apps WG on Widget Spec
15:18:02 [achuter]
zakim, mute me
15:18:02 [Zakim]
achuter should now be muted
15:18:06 [francois]
jo: Bruce is not on the call.
15:18:12 [francois]
... Other business?
15:18:25 [achuter]
zakim, unmute me
15:18:25 [Zakim]
achuter should no longer be muted
15:18:26 [Zakim]
-jo
15:18:26 [francois]
... OK, in that case, thanks and bye!
15:18:28 [Zakim]
-EdC
15:18:30 [Zakim]
-dom
15:18:30 [Zakim]
-adam
15:18:32 [Zakim]
-Sangwhan_Moon
15:18:32 [Zakim]
-Francois
15:18:34 [Zakim]
-achuter
15:18:35 [Zakim]
-SeanP
15:18:36 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
15:18:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were adam, jo, Francois, Sangwhan_Moon, Jeff, dom, yeliz, EdC, SeanP, achuter
15:18:41 [Sangwhan_Moon]
Sangwhan_Moon has left #bpwg
15:18:43 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:18:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-bpwg-minutes.html francois