See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-Possible-F2F-March-2009/results Results of the questionnaire
jo: it's going to be in
London
... comments?
francois: wonder if Dan can join
jo: yes, he answered the
questionnaire
... OK, so next F2F will be in London 18-20 March 2009
francois: any location?
jo: I think Dan proposed to host it.
adam: It's possible that Google can host it as well.
jo: Alan posted an update. Self-explanatory.
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0038.html Alan's email
<jo> Alan's update
jo: Yeliz, something to add?
yeliz: nothing to add, no.
adam: Main thing I've done is to
go through the doc and integrate your comments jo.
... In terms of editorial comments, I'm fine.
... In terms of broader comments, this translates into actions
to investigate your points.
... Maybe we can raise issues on each of them
jo: Why don't we raise issues, and see how to action them?
adam: OK, I'll do it by the end
of the week.
... section 3.2.1 is asking for more advice on security.
... I'd appreciate if we could get the advice of the Team, and
in particular security folks.
<jeffs> hope security folks take a good hard long look at this... is worrisome
<EdC> The practice seems to provide authentication, but no confidentiality, nor integrity. (at first sight).
<jo> ACTION: daoust to contact WSC team (Thomas) to obtain a view on the secure hash mechanism discussed under 3.2.1 in BP2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<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].
jo: we should probably go back to Thomas and folks of WSC WG.
francois: OK. Will do that.
jo: Anything else on BP2?
<Sangwhan_Moon> I will check if our browser security team has anything particular to provide for feedback for 899
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.
jo: OK, good idea.
<dom> ACTION-896?
<trackbot> ACTION-896 -- François Daoust to stimulate discussion on the SHOULD NOT question ref mobile heuristics -- due 2009-01-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/896
<jo> ACTION-896
francois: I can just apologize. I haven't done my action. Sean replied.
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.
<dom> but isn't the CT proxy on the network and thus would catch requests to other non-mobile sites?
SeanP: One example: a Web page that links to non-mobile Web pages, users may want to see the non-mobile pages transformed.
<dom> Sean's proposal on interfering with mobile sites
jo: I think we should raise this kind of stuff as real issues
<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.
<jo> ACTION: jo to raise issues on inconclusive CT threads once the new draft of CT is prepared [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<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].
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?
SeanP: it sounds to be the
case.
... Eduardo replied.
jo: Could you raise a formal
issue on where you think the discussion is, Sean?
... Threads start to be a little difficult to
follow.
<jo> ACTION: patterson to raise issue the thread he started on transforming mobile content entitled "RE: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<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].
<dom> Issue creator
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask about CT-on-network
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?
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.
dom: is linked-mode the only or default mode?
SeanP: we have both types of deployment.
dom: Well, in that case, we could at least enforce the rule on deployments that behave as real proxies, if impossible in the linked-mode case.
SeanP: ok, there may still be the problem with the toolbar problem.
dom: I think that's a separate discussion.
jo: Something else?
EdC: I haven't completed the
action entirely. First results on the mailing-list.
... The interesting thing is that I haven't found anything
truly concrete on X- header fields, nor anything on deprecation
of fields
... except in RFC3864.
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0052.html EdC's first results
EdC: I found an extensive
discussion on IETF lists.
... but could not really determine the outcome of that.
... I intend to send a mail to IETF.
... In the meantime, if anyone has any pointer to provide, I'm
interested!
jo: I thought X- header fields were governed by a separate RFC, but this may actually be a legend.
dom: I'll see if I can find something.
<dom> RFC 2169 ?
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.
jo: OK, right, let's continue the search.
jo: Rob and Tom are active
participants in that discussion and neither are on the call
today.
... What's been much on my mind here, is that we were asked to
review the OPES draft.
<jo> OPES
jo: We need to keep that in mind, and make sure we're compliant with it.
francois: didn't we review the spec before?
jo: yes, but not really with HTTPS in mind
francois: what I recall is that, in short, agreement from both ends was better, but that agreement from one end was enough.
<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-">
jo: yes, but I think there was a need to have an explicit agreement.
<jo> rfc search
<dom> (thus an X- header cannot be considered as a formal MIME header)
<jo> enter "OPES" to find all references
jo: Do you want to comment on X- header fields?
dom: yes. Apparently, the grammar defined in RFC822 forbids header fields that start with "X-" headers.
jo: OK. Thanks for the pointer,
dom.
... Back to HTTPS links rewriting.
... any idea to move forward?
francois: I'd love to see the issue rationalized. The discussion covers many aspects. Hard to focus, follow and resolve.
SeanP: Quick question: how did OPES come into the discussion?
<jo> ACTION: jo to summarise current discussions on https link re writing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-902 - Summarise current discussions on https link re writing [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-01-27].
jo: we received a last call from the IAB asking us to review the specification.
<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 ].
<EdC> There is a dozen RFC related to OPES at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/opes !
jo: Anything else on HTTPS links rewriting?
francois: just wanted to raise the fact that it's not only HTTPS links rewriting. It's HTTPS and links rewriting, combined or not.
jo: OK. And I remember Eduardo posted a thorough analysis on that. Thanks!
jo: Bruce is not on the
call.
... Other business?
... OK, in that case, thanks and bye!