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