IRC log of dnt on 2011-10-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:55:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:55:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:55:19 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:55:32 [aleecia]
Zakim, this is dnt
15:55:32 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:55:41 [aleecia]
chair is schunter
15:55:48 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:55:48 [Frank]
Frank has joined #dnt
15:55:58 [aleecia]
zakim, who is on the call please?
15:55:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia
15:56:09 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:56:10 [Zakim]
15:56:19 [NinjaMarnau]
NinjaMarnau has joined #dnt
15:56:36 [Zakim]
15:56:40 [npdoty]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:56:40 [RRSAgent]
15:56:48 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
15:56:48 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
15:56:52 [npdoty]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:12 [Zakim]
15:57:36 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
15:57:36 [Zakim]
15:57:42 [npdoty]
trackbot, start meeting
15:57:44 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:57:46 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:57:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:57:47 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:57:47 [trackbot]
Date: 26 October 2011
15:58:11 [JohnSimpson]
JohnSimpson has joined #dnt
15:58:11 [Zakim]
15:58:15 [tl]
the robots don't know how to talk to each other?
15:58:18 [Zakim]
15:58:39 [aleecia]
zakim, this is dnt
15:58:39 [Zakim]
aleecia, this was already T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:58:40 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:58:45 [aleecia]
15:58:58 [npdoty]
occasionally the robots get confused, you know how it is
15:59:00 [chuck]
chuck has joined #dnt
15:59:07 [npdoty]
15:59:09 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
15:59:11 [tl]
what is this i don't even...
15:59:20 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
15:59:21 [Zakim]
15:59:30 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
15:59:44 [Chris]
Chris has joined #dnt
15:59:44 [Zakim]
15:59:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.862.aaaa
15:59:56 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
15:59:58 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
15:59:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.916.641.aabb
16:00:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.310.392.aacc
16:00:06 [Zakim]
16:00:09 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:00:09 [Zakim]
16:00:13 [Zakim]
16:00:17 [Zakim]
16:00:32 [Zakim]
16:00:47 [Zakim]
16:00:54 [jkaran]
jkaran has joined #dnt
16:00:55 [Zakim]
16:00:55 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #dnt
16:01:00 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
16:01:07 [Zakim]
16:01:12 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaaa is Patty
16:01:14 [Zakim]
16:01:19 [Zakim]
+ +385221aadd
16:01:23 [Zakim]
16:01:27 [clp]
clp has joined #dnt
16:01:29 [Zakim]
+Patty; got it
16:01:31 [Zakim]
16:01:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.508.655.aaee
16:01:49 [Zakim]
16:01:51 [CarmenBalber]
CarmenBalber has joined #dnt
16:01:52 [enewland]
enewland has joined #dnt
16:01:52 [Zakim]
16:01:58 [npdoty]
Zakim, aacc is JohnSimpson
16:01:59 [Zakim]
+JohnSimpson; got it
16:02:05 [clp]
Here now.
16:02:11 [aleecia]
zakim who is on the call
16:02:11 [dsinger_]
Zakim, who is here?
16:02:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, tl, dsriedel (muted), Frank_BlueCava, kevint, ninja, dwainberg, [IBM_Watson], fielding, Patty, +1.916.641.aabb, JohnSimpson, Heffernen, ChuckCurran,
16:02:14 [Zakim]
... npdoty, Justin, efelten, Chris, dsinger (muted), +385221aadd, ??P3, Carmen, PederMagee, +1.508.655.aaee, JKaran
16:02:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see enewland, CarmenBalber, clp, alex, dsinger_, jkaran, fielding, efelten, ksmith, Chris, amyc, hefferjr, justin, chuck, JohnSimpson, adrianba, NinjaMarnau, dwainberg,
16:02:24 [Zakim]
... Frank, npdoty, Zakim, RRSAgent, aleecia, dsriedel, tl, joanne, mischat, karl, pde, hober, trackbot
16:02:29 [Zakim]
16:02:33 [npdoty]
Zakim, aabb is Joanne
16:02:33 [Zakim]
+Joanne; got it
16:02:35 [Zakim]
16:02:41 [Zakim]
16:02:43 [chuck]
chuck has joined #dnt
16:03:04 [clay]
clay has joined #dnt
16:03:05 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaee is HenryGoldstein
16:03:05 [Zakim]
+HenryGoldstein; got it
16:03:08 [hefferjr]
Zakim, hefferjr is Ronan Heffernan
16:03:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'hefferjr is Ronan Heffernan', hefferjr
16:03:27 [hefferjr]
Zakim, heffejr is RonanHeffernan
16:03:27 [Zakim]
sorry, hefferjr, I do not recognize a party named 'heffejr'
16:03:39 [hefferjr]
Zakim, hefferjr is RonanHeffernan
16:03:40 [Zakim]
sorry, hefferjr, I do not recognize a party named 'hefferjr'
16:03:45 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
16:04:07 [PederMagee]
PederMagee has joined #dnt
16:04:09 [aleecia]
zakim, who is on the phone
16:04:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', aleecia
16:04:14 [aleecia]
zamik, who is here
16:04:19 [aleecia]
zakim, who is here
16:04:19 [Zakim]
aleecia, you need to end that query with '?'
16:04:29 [aleecia]
(this is why I should never scribe :-)
16:04:36 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
16:04:37 [aleecia]
Zakim, who is here?
16:04:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, tl, dsriedel (muted), Frank_BlueCava, kevint, ninja, dwainberg, [IBM_Watson], fielding, Patty, Joanne, JohnSimpson, Heffernen, ChuckCurran, npdoty,
16:04:40 [Zakim]
... Justin, efelten, Chris, dsinger (muted), +385221aadd, ??P3, Carmen, PederMagee, HenryGoldstein, JKaran, Sean, clay_opa_cbs, alex
16:04:43 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schunter, PederMagee, WileyS, clay, chuck, enewland, CarmenBalber, clp, alex, dsinger_, jkaran, fielding, efelten, ksmith, Chris, amyc, hefferjr, justin, JohnSimpson,
16:04:45 [aleecia]
zakim, mute me
16:04:47 [Zakim]
... adrianba, NinjaMarnau, dwainberg, Frank, npdoty, Zakim, RRSAgent, aleecia, dsriedel, tl, joanne, mischat, karl, pde, hober, trackbot
16:04:50 [Zakim]
aleecia should now be muted
16:04:51 [Zakim]
16:04:57 [npdoty]
Chair: schunter
16:05:12 [alex]
mute me
16:05:25 [Zakim]
16:05:34 [Zakim]
16:05:41 [alex]
Zakim, mute me
16:05:41 [Zakim]
alex should now be muted
16:05:41 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
16:05:52 [JC]
JC has joined #dnt
16:06:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.263.aaff
16:06:24 [npdoty]
Carmen, I can help with the syntax, thanks for your help
16:06:35 [npdoty]
scribenick: CarmenBalber
16:06:43 [Zakim]
16:06:49 [WileyS]
Dial # again?
16:06:54 [npdoty]
Zakim, code?
16:06:54 [Zakim]
the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, npdoty
16:06:57 [karl]
zakim, +??P66 is karl
16:06:57 [Zakim]
sorry, karl, I do not recognize a party named '+??P66'
16:07:02 [karl]
zakim, ??P66 is karl
16:07:02 [Zakim]
+karl; got it
16:07:05 [BrianTs]
BrianTs has joined #DNT
16:07:09 [henry]
henry has joined #dnt
16:07:15 [CarmenBalber]
next week no call
16:07:39 [aleecia]
thank you david!
16:07:41 [CarmenBalber]
mattias: agenda, comments on minutes?
16:07:49 [karl]
zakim, mute me
16:07:49 [Zakim]
karl should now be muted
16:07:50 [npdoty]
16:07:53 [CarmenBalber]
16:07:56 [Lia]
Lia has joined #dnt
16:07:57 [CarmenBalber]
minutes approved
16:08:08 [npdoty]
16:08:30 [CarmenBalber]
mattias: action items
16:08:37 [Zakim]
16:08:38 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
16:08:39 [Zakim]
aleecia should no longer be muted
16:08:43 [Zakim]
16:08:44 [jmayer]
hey carmen, when you have a subsequent line by the same speaker, convention is to start it with "... " - easiest if you just copy + paste
16:08:49 [CarmenBalber]
DNT compliance proposals - Aleecia?
16:08:58 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft.a] has me
16:08:58 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:09:01 [aleecia]
zakim, mute me
16:09:01 [Zakim]
aleecia should now be muted
16:09:01 [CarmenBalber]
Aleecia: working on it
16:09:04 [npdoty]
16:09:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-16 -- Thomas Lowenthal to update mandatory response header proposal to acknowledge caching concerns -- due 2011-10-17 -- OPEN
16:09:04 [trackbot]
16:09:06 [Zakim]
16:09:21 [CarmenBalber]
Tom: not done
16:09:50 [aleecia]
(before f2f meeting?)
16:09:56 [CarmenBalber]
Tom seems to be lost
16:09:58 [npdoty]
tl, we can't hear you
16:10:14 [tl]
yes, friday, this week, before the f2f
16:10:15 [JohnSimpson]
Looks like he's gone
16:10:19 [punderwood]
punderwood has joined #dnt
16:10:30 [npdoty]
16:10:30 [trackbot]
ACTION-17 -- Shane Wiley to write a concrete proposal re 3rd party response. -- due 2011-10-26 -- OPEN
16:10:30 [trackbot]
16:10:32 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: Tom please send new due date
16:10:44 [CarmenBalber]
Tom: before end of week
16:11:05 [npdoty]
ACTION-16 due 10/30
16:11:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-16 Update mandatory response header proposal to acknowledge caching concerns due date now 10/30
16:11:11 [npdoty]
16:11:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-18 -- Jonathan Mayer to write a summary of options for how 1st parties hear 3rd party status by tuesday -- due 2011-10-26 -- OPEN
16:11:11 [trackbot]
16:11:11 [aleecia]
(Tom, please update the date (click the pencil icon to edit))
16:11:20 [CarmenBalber]
Jonathan: sent to list
16:11:23 [npdoty]
close ACTION-18
16:11:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-18 Write a summary of options for how 1st parties hear 3rd party status by tuesday closed
16:11:33 [npdoty]
16:11:33 [trackbot]
ACTION-20 -- Peter Eckersley to write an option for how first parties set third party DNT status in an observable way -- due 2011-10-26 -- OPEN
16:11:33 [trackbot]
16:11:56 [npdoty]
pde, are you on the phone?
16:12:08 [CarmenBalber]
Peter not yet on call, Mattias sending reminder
16:12:24 [npdoty]
16:12:24 [trackbot]
ACTION-21 -- Jonathan Mayer to writes up a third party interaction bit for the doc -- due 2011-10-26 -- OPEN
16:12:24 [trackbot]
16:12:26 [CarmenBalber]
Jonathan: Action 21- sent to list
16:12:29 [npdoty]
close ACTION-21
16:12:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-21 Writes up a third party interaction bit for the doc closed
16:12:56 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: Santa Clara agenda
16:13:07 [Zakim]
16:13:07 [npdoty]
Topic: Santa Clara agenda
16:13:09 [aleecia]
16:13:14 [npdoty]
16:13:14 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
16:13:14 [Zakim]
aleecia should no longer be muted
16:13:20 [npdoty]
ack aleecia
16:13:20 [JohnSimpson]
Agenda looks good to me
16:13:38 [W_]
W_ has joined #dnt
16:13:58 [CarmenBalber]
Aleecia: expect slight time changes, email to list re self-hosted dinner
16:14:11 [aleecia]
ack me
16:14:12 [CarmenBalber]
... dinner is Monday night
16:14:29 [aleecia]
zakim, mute me
16:14:29 [Zakim]
aleecia should now be muted
16:14:44 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: discuss strawman docs
16:14:49 [npdoty]
Topic: Tracking Preference Expression strawman
16:14:58 [fielding]
16:15:45 [aleecia]
(If you have meta questions put 'em in IRC rather than speaking if you would, please. With 40+ if we all speak it once it gets hard)
16:15:48 [tl]
16:16:01 [CarmenBalber]
issue management, general feedback, if issues off track etc
16:16:28 [CarmenBalber]
... consider issues under review, postpone or other action
16:16:55 [aleecia]
16:17:18 [CarmenBalber]
Roy: sections on general intro, determining user preference, what browser needs to do
16:18:02 [CarmenBalber]
... request context, how server should respond, selective opt-in auditing, determining 1st party role
16:18:25 [Zakim]
16:18:32 [tl]
zakim mute me
16:18:34 [CarmenBalber]
... Intro - look for things we should or shouldn't be standardizing
16:19:05 [CarmenBalber]
... skip notations, determining user preference issues we haven't discussed
16:19:07 [npdoty]
Introduction not normative, but a motivating section, so feel free to send feedback to fielding
16:19:11 [BrianTs]
Zakim, [Microsoft] has BrianTs
16:19:11 [Zakim]
+BrianTs; got it
16:19:35 [tl]
zakim unmute me
16:19:59 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: discussion on issues in 1st section - Issue 13, propose postponing
16:20:02 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:20:37 [WileyS]
16:20:53 [Zakim]
16:21:16 [CarmenBalber]
Roy: answered this - don't need to resolve
16:21:22 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: move to under review
16:21:24 [npdoty]
16:21:28 [JohnSimpson]
Sounds good
16:21:37 [aleecia]
zakim, who is speaking?
16:21:39 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
16:21:49 [Zakim]
aleecia, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:22:07 [aleecia]
(but Nick's right: that was Shane Wiley)
16:22:18 [CarmenBalber]
Roy: requirements only kick in if allow you to browse web
16:22:35 [CarmenBalber]
?: does lang dist single vs cross-site? yes
16:22:41 [dsinger_]
I think it is more that that app does not need DNT rather than comply,
16:22:52 [npdoty]
16:23:02 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: under review, freeze for time, decide to close later
16:23:40 [CarmenBalber]
... Issue 4?
16:23:43 [npdoty]
16:23:48 [npdoty]
ack tl
16:23:58 [npdoty]
16:24:03 [CarmenBalber]
?: 4, 40, 68 out of scope for working group, 64 appropriate for compliance doc
16:24:12 [WileyS]
16:24:13 [npdoty]
16:24:15 [aleecia]
16:24:15 [trackbot]
ISSUE-64 -- How does preference management work with DNT -- raised
16:24:15 [trackbot]
16:24:23 [NinjaMarnau]
I don't agree with issue 4 being out of scope
16:24:24 [aleecia]
16:24:24 [trackbot]
ISSUE-4 -- What is the default for DNT in client configuration (opt-in or opt-out)? -- open
16:24:24 [trackbot]
16:24:31 [aleecia]
16:24:34 [jmayer]
16:24:35 [justin]
Agree, out of scope
16:24:36 [schunter]
16:24:43 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: Tom says 4 out of scope be/c user agent related
16:24:49 [dsinger_]
16:25:11 [schunter]
FOCUS on ISSUE-4 first.
16:25:20 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
16:25:20 [Zakim]
aleecia should no longer be muted
16:25:26 [npdoty]
ack aleecia
16:25:28 [WileyS]
ack WileyS
16:25:51 [fielding]
16:25:56 [jmayer]
16:25:58 [CarmenBalber]
Aleecia: in boston talked about if DNT shoudl be default, recollection that agreement was one of the few things out of scope
16:26:09 [aleecia]
zakim, mute me
16:26:09 [Zakim]
aleecia should now be muted
16:26:15 [npdoty]
16:26:18 [WileyS]
+1 - agree with Aleecia (although I'd love for us all to agree to a default of "off")
16:26:23 [npdoty]
ack dsinger_
16:26:23 [schunter]
16:26:39 [dsinger_]
16:26:41 [dsinger_]
16:27:06 [CarmenBalber]
dsinger: don't see how default can be anything other than status quo before we issue spec - out of our scope
16:27:31 [tl]
16:27:34 [npdoty]
ack fielding
16:27:39 [CarmenBalber]
?: disagree that's out of scope
16:27:40 [tl]
16:27:47 [npdoty]
16:27:50 [schunter]
? is Roy Fielding
16:28:00 [karl]
16:28:02 [aleecia]
So for how it *could* be something other than right now: all browsers send 1 or 0 unless the users set it. That would decide if it's opt in or opt out.
16:28:04 [aleecia]
16:28:05 [CarmenBalber]
Roy: obviously in scope for protocol to say whether you send header or not
16:28:16 [WileyS]
16:28:21 [jmayer]
16:28:22 [karl]
q+ to ask about out of scope on default configuration
16:28:37 [dsriedel]
Could just be empty, no? Leave the DNT:<empty>.
16:28:41 [jmayer]
16:28:43 [jmayer]
16:28:46 [aleecia]
Yes: don't need to send anything
16:28:50 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: see your point, let's leave open, your point is you have to know what to send
16:28:52 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
16:28:52 [Zakim]
aleecia should no longer be muted
16:29:03 [CarmenBalber]
... if install browser, does it always send DNT1 or DNT0
16:29:09 [jmayer]
see our ietf draft for a formalization of the idea
16:29:20 [jmayer]
the DNT: 0 state != the no DNT state
16:29:26 [schunter]
16:29:26 [npdoty]
16:29:29 [npdoty]
ack tl
16:29:35 [dsinger_]
Yes. We DO need to document what no DNT request means, even if we say it means little.
16:29:52 [aleecia]
jmayer: agree fully
16:30:06 [CarmenBalber]
Tom: defining user interface component,that's not part ofthe protocol - defined by Sec. 1.2 out of scope of the charter
16:30:07 [npdoty]
16:30:50 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: Roy's point - need to explain how user preference linked w/field
16:31:06 [fielding]
"While guidelines that define the user experience or user interface may be useful (and within scope), the Working Group will not specify the exact presentation to the user."
16:31:18 [karl]
16:31:42 [WileyS]
16:31:43 [CarmenBalber]
define the definition, then user agent express user preferences, no need for us to additionally describe what user should do
16:32:01 [karl]
16:32:02 [npdoty]
s/define/tl: define/
16:32:10 [dsriedel]
so issue-4 postponed?
16:32:10 [schunter]
16:32:35 [jmayer]
to clarify my position, i agree with aleecia that we shouldn't define the default because of surrounding political decisions - but i don't think defining a default would be out of scope
16:32:41 [schunter]
Aleecia: Turning on sends 1
16:32:46 [CarmenBalber]
Aleecia: if user turns on DNT send 1, turns off DNT send 0, if no decision then don't send anything
16:32:47 [schunter]
Turning off sends 0
16:32:53 [schunter]
Doing nothing sends nothing
16:33:28 [CarmenBalber]
... jurisdictional, see no header don't know user choice - in US don't honor DNT, in a country that decides default is DNT, then honor DNT
16:33:45 [jmayer]
a minor point on ui - if we have a dnt: 0 state, that should probably be a separate checkbox
16:33:54 [fielding]
yes, what Aleecia said is what I think should be in the spec.
16:34:09 [npdoty]
+1 to Aleecia
16:34:12 [clp]
16:34:15 [ksmith]
+1 to Aleecia
16:34:15 [jmayer]
check/uncheck dnt = DNT: 0 would be a really bad ui
16:34:23 [aleecia]
16:34:26 [aleecia]
16:34:28 [aleecia]
ack me
16:34:34 [aleecia]
zakim mute me
16:34:49 [npdoty]
we could define that DNT should mean a particular choice from a user, but not define the jurisdictional issue of what the default response should be
16:35:07 [aleecia]
action: aleecia to write up proposal for issue-4 based on what we discussed in boston due tomorrow
16:35:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-22 - Write up proposal for issue-4 based on what we discussed in boston due tomorrow [on Aleecia McDonald - due 2011-11-02].
16:35:14 [tl]
16:35:25 [tl]
16:35:27 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: Issue 40 - enable for session or permanent, I suggest out of scope bec difference user agents can handle differently
16:35:30 [jmayer]
16:35:32 [aleecia]
16:35:32 [trackbot]
ISSUE-40 -- Enable Do Not Track just for a session, rather than being stored -- raised
16:35:32 [trackbot]
16:35:50 [WileyS]
Agreed - out of scope - a web browser UI decision
16:35:53 [CarmenBalber]
... move as out of scope
16:36:04 [Zakim]
16:36:20 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
16:36:21 [tl]
16:36:25 [CarmenBalber]
David: not sure I disagree, but proposal elsewhere re deleting prior history, if user sets 1 session DNT is there a conflict?
16:36:36 [Zakim]
16:36:42 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:36:42 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:36:42 [CarmenBalber]
... does user intend to delete history or just prevent tracking during that session
16:36:55 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: my understanding just this session
16:37:12 [tl]
ACTION: tl to write explanation of why ISSUE-4 is an out-of-scope user interface matter by friday.
16:37:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-23 - Write explanation of why ISSUE-4 is an out-of-scope user interface matter by friday. [on Thomas Lowenthal - due 2011-11-02].
16:37:15 [tl]
16:37:20 [CarmenBalber]
david: if per-session DNT signal may not effect prior browsing history
16:37:35 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: different issue, issue 40 out of scope
16:37:36 [fielding]
16:37:36 [trackbot]
ISSUE-64 -- How does preference management work with DNT -- raised
16:37:36 [trackbot]
16:38:06 [CarmenBalber]
Roy?: re setting preferences on websites, for example choosing a language on a site
16:38:11 [aleecia]
please add yourself to the queue rather than just speaking
16:38:16 [clp]
16:38:23 [schunter]
16:38:23 [trackbot]
ISSUE-64 -- How does preference management work with DNT -- raised
16:38:23 [trackbot]
16:38:28 [WileyS]
16:38:43 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:38:46 [aleecia]
ack clp
16:38:54 [Zakim]
16:39:02 [CarmenBalber]
Charles: section d at end out of scope or proposed issues should remain in document with descriptions of why
16:39:15 [fielding]
in appendix D
16:39:26 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: good idea, appendix of closed etc issues with rationale
16:39:57 [CarmenBalber]
Roy: could Tom edit description of issue
16:40:41 [CarmenBalber]
Tom: does describe what it's about, title is how pref mgmt work w/dnt - as eample w/dnt on then choose preference, what's the implication, does site have to get opt-in to set cookie
16:40:47 [CarmenBalber]
... clear, doesn't need modification
16:41:26 [schunter]
I suggested an update
16:41:28 [tl]
16:41:31 [fielding]
we can copy note from ifette into the Description field of issue
16:41:35 [tl]
ack WileyS
16:42:05 [CarmenBalber]
Wiley: how does site management interact w/dnt, preference management is confusing
16:42:43 [tl]
16:42:51 [schunter]
16:42:51 [trackbot]
ISSUE-68 -- Should there be functionality for syncing preferences about tracking across different browsers? -- raised
16:42:51 [trackbot]
16:43:05 [fielding]
16:43:11 [tl]
16:43:11 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: issue 68 - impression to say user agent and out of scope
16:43:18 [dsinger]
can't think why this is in scope
16:43:33 [CarmenBalber]
... out of scope
16:44:03 [CarmenBalber]
... timeout for this doc
16:44:17 [CarmenBalber]
... could send proposals to mailing list to see if there's consensus, thoughts?
16:44:41 [CarmenBalber]
... want to leave time for second doc, suggest continue in this mode but will send proposals to mailing list
16:45:07 [CarmenBalber]
dsinger: not concerned w/issued ID'd so far, more concerned we failed to identify issues
16:45:11 [tl]
16:45:34 [CarmenBalber]
... focus for moment on making sure all the issues are on the table
16:45:56 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: agree as long as new issues in scope
16:46:41 [aleecia]
16:47:15 [CarmenBalber]
... preference expression interest header is ?, but ongoing open discussion on response headers
16:48:13 [CarmenBalber]
... still looking for arguments why a ? doesn't do the job (sorry, didn't catch phrase - Carmen)
16:48:31 [aleecia]
16:48:54 [aleecia]
(Tom, you still want to be in queue?)
16:48:55 [schunter]
well known URI that contains a file that says to what extent a site follows DNT.
16:48:57 [CarmenBalber]
Roy: html DOM interfaces copied from Microsoft, not sure what other browsers implemented, browser cos please review
16:49:05 [jmayer]
there's a non-standard dom property in firefox now, i think the same approach
16:49:08 [jmayer]
but it may go away
16:49:17 [schunter]
16:49:21 [clay]
16:49:30 [schunter]
16:49:32 [CarmenBalber]
mattias: final words on tracking preference spec?
16:49:34 [tl]
16:49:54 [CarmenBalber]
Clay: how many issues to list?
16:50:20 [CarmenBalber]
Mattias: hope not many be/c most open
16:50:48 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: start w/her email summary from 1am
16:51:05 [CarmenBalber]
... first: globally discussion re consumers vs citizens vs users - terminology
16:51:11 [fielding]
matthias, please do one issue per mail so that tracker keeps them organized.
16:51:19 [tl]
16:51:24 [CarmenBalber]
... best bet users and people, avoid consumers and citizens
16:51:26 [clay]
16:51:32 [aleecia]
ack clay
16:51:41 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:51:45 [justin]
I'm fine with users/people, but I don't think we should spend a lot of time on this.
16:52:05 [CarmenBalber]
tom: agree, non-normative language
16:52:08 [WileyS]
Agree with Justin
16:52:19 [WileyS]
16:52:23 [CarmenBalber]
Aleecia: anyone disagree?
16:52:31 [NinjaMarnau]
im fine with it
16:52:42 [CarmenBalber]
... closed
16:53:03 [CarmenBalber]
... phrase 'behavioral tracking' v 'tracking' - redundant?
16:53:09 [tl]
16:53:10 [jmayer]
16:53:13 [CarmenBalber]
... suggest use "behavioral tracking", thoughts?
16:53:16 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
16:53:18 [clp]
16:53:30 [Zakim]
16:53:37 [CarmenBalber]
jonathan: concern that behavioral has a connotatio that profiling is happening
16:53:43 [WileyS]
How about "Historical"?
16:53:50 [tl]
16:53:54 [CarmenBalber]
... many of the proposals don't include a profiling requirement, may be confusing
16:53:55 [WileyS]
Historical Tracking?
16:54:00 [CarmenBalber]
Al: good point
16:54:00 [aleecia]
ack clp
16:54:03 [aleecia]
16:54:04 [JohnSimpson]
16:54:17 [CarmenBalber]
charles: might want to use a word that isn't already associated with a connotation, historical is a suggestion
16:54:30 [CarmenBalber]
... need a glossary
16:54:37 [karl]
tracking should be fine if well defined.
16:54:38 [amyc]
passive tracking
16:54:43 [WileyS]
16:54:44 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:55:11 [CarmenBalber]
tom: behavioral tracking might be inconsistent w/definitions, defer until definitions are more precise
16:55:26 [WileyS]
If we're going to come back to this, then suggest staying with "behavioral tracking" for now
16:55:29 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: agree
16:55:45 [aleecia]
ack JohnSimpson
16:55:46 [CarmenBalber]
john: behavioral tracking is a subset of tracking
16:56:01 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
16:56:05 [CarmenBalber]
... might mean something broader
16:56:35 [Zakim]
16:56:35 [karl]
16:56:38 [dsinger]
16:56:43 [CarmenBalber]
?: pros and cons, behavioral more closely hues to initial issue we wanted to solve, stay with behavioral now then consider modifying later
16:56:48 [justin]
16:57:03 [aleecia]
16:57:06 [jmayer]
16:57:06 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: may use different term later, note controversy and move on
16:57:10 [karl]
ack karl
16:57:10 [aleecia]
ach karl
16:57:54 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
16:57:57 [CarmenBalber]
karl: behavioral tracking - don't have shared understanding of meaning
16:58:12 [karl]
zakim, mute me
16:58:12 [Zakim]
karl should now be muted
16:58:19 [CarmenBalber]
david: adjective before tracking opens can of worms - 'my kind of tracking should be exempt
16:58:34 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: ongoing issue
16:58:55 [dsinger]
…or rather 'my kind of tracking is not XXX tracking, and it's XXX tracking that is controlled by this specification'
16:58:56 [CarmenBalber]
... Sec 2.1 - does internet require exchange of data across servers?
16:59:13 [CarmenBalber]
... at very least IP address is going out, but not sure this is a big issue
16:59:28 [CarmenBalber]
... suggest leave as is
16:59:53 [CarmenBalber]
... Sec 2.1 doesn't address what people are concerned about, can flesh out section more but not problem moving forward
16:59:57 [justin]
Yes, Intro and Scope are bare bones at the moment --- we wanted to focus on the substantive provisions/.
17:00:19 [tl]
17:00:27 [CarmenBalber]
... Sec 3.2 if 3rd party anybody but 1st party, then users are 3rd parties.
17:00:40 [CarmenBalber]
... open question if 1st and 3rd parties should be what we're defining
17:00:42 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:00:49 [CarmenBalber]
tom: mostly definitional, user is 2nd party
17:00:57 [dsinger]
17:01:02 [schunter]
17:01:08 [CarmenBalber]
... raise issue and discuss on list, potentially contentious
17:01:24 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: current def of 1st, users 2nd, 3rd parties are anything but 1st or 2nd
17:01:26 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
17:01:35 [karl]
we have to define what is a "party". In the sense that it is not a domain name, but the technology is based on domain names
17:01:50 [CarmenBalber]
david: can define 1st party but not useful - site user thinks they're interacting with, but server or user agent can't work out what that is
17:02:17 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: may have 1st party def that's not technically enforced, for example idea that things have common branding
17:02:23 [karl]
domain names and businesses are orthogonal.
17:02:31 [CarmenBalber]
.. example IBM owns lotus, and everyone understands this
17:02:51 [CarmenBalber]
... can have spec that's still one party based on user understanding
17:02:57 [aleecia]
ack schunter
17:02:59 [amyc]
parties are collecting info, users are providing info
17:03:13 [CarmenBalber]
mattias: not big deal that you can't determine 1st party technically
17:03:34 [karl]
q+ to ask about the disconnect between the policy and the technology
17:03:42 [CarmenBalber]
... constraints on 3rd parties are stronger, question is how does ibm tell lotus it can drop the constraints be/c in certain cases it's a 1st party
17:03:44 [justin]
17:03:48 [dwainberg]
17:04:21 [Zakim]
17:04:25 [CarmenBalber]
... if interacting w/site it's a 1st party and if not 3rd party
17:04:44 [karl]
ack karl
17:04:45 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: mattias take as action item for friday?
17:04:46 [aleecia]
ach karl
17:04:46 [Zakim]
karl, you wanted to ask about the disconnect between the policy and the technology
17:04:48 [CarmenBalber]
mattias: yes
17:05:07 [aleecia]
action: mattias to write 1st v. 3rd party on basis of interaction by friday
17:05:07 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - mattias
17:05:08 [tl]
17:05:12 [CarmenBalber]
karl: if can't tie meaning to technical specs then we can't implement
17:05:21 [Zakim]
17:05:37 [CarmenBalber]
... things can achieve w/DNT header won't make sense for users, users lose trust in browser, system
17:05:47 [aleecia]
17:06:13 [karl]
zakim, mute me
17:06:13 [Zakim]
karl should now be muted
17:06:49 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: won't resolve now, tom did you want to propose resolving by defining user as 2nd party?
17:06:55 [CarmenBalber]
tom: can write up but doesn't resolve
17:07:25 [WileyS]
17:07:34 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: make suggestions about 1st/3rd party distinctions to mailing list, editors please incorporate into document
17:07:53 [tl]
17:07:54 [dsinger]
17:07:58 [WileyS]
17:08:01 [dwainberg]
17:08:15 [aleecia]
ack justin
17:08:38 [CarmenBalber]
justin: most controversial - common branding or corporate entity rule, would like more argument on which we should choose
17:08:40 [jmayer]
17:08:55 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:09:24 [CarmenBalber]
jonathan: 3 options, common branding, business entities/affiliates, we at stanford use a reasonable expectations definition
17:09:26 [tl]
17:09:27 [karl]
typically and at the Web architecture level. Because domain names are different from business entities. Then how do we define on the Web that two URIs belong to the same business.
17:09:44 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:09:48 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: common branding and reasonable expectations aren't the same, flesh out the distinction
17:09:55 [CarmenBalber]
tom: another approach same origin policy
17:10:05 [Zakim]
17:10:07 [justin]
Yeah, common branding is designed to get to reasonable expectations, but if you could flesh out your idea more in listserv, that would be helpful.
17:10:11 [jmayer]
i'll take it
17:10:26 [karl]
tl, do you mean CORS?
17:10:31 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: jonathan taking action, try to do by friday
17:10:41 [Zakim]
- +385221aadd
17:10:43 [jmayer]
17:10:59 [fielding]
we can't expand the meaning of same-origin -- it is used to secure sites (meaning they can't include same-branded user forums, etc.)
17:11:03 [tl]
karl, i mean "anything not on the domain in the user's address bar is a 3p"
17:11:11 [justin]
17:11:14 [CarmenBalber]
... next, attempts to define consent, ask editors to add the discussion to the document
17:11:16 [aleecia]
17:11:45 [karl]
tl, hmm what about businesses sharing the same domain name?
17:12:03 [CarmenBalber]
,,, moving on, Sec 4.2, intermediary compliance, also discussing with issue 4 - idea that user agent shouldn't state DNT for you if you don't have one, probably also ISP and other parties
17:12:05 [tl]
17:12:27 [justin]
I took this from Jonathan's IETF draft --- Jonathan, do you want to defend?
17:12:32 [aleecia]
17:12:35 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:12:37 [CarmenBalber]
... only send what user expresses, must send what user expresses
17:12:40 [justin]
Or maybe it was from somewhere else . . .
17:12:58 [Zakim]
17:13:16 [jmayer]
action: jmayer to sketch four approaches to 1p vs. 3p distinction due friday
17:13:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-25 - Sketch four approaches to 1p vs. 3p distinction due friday [on Jonathan Mayer - due 2011-11-02].
17:13:18 [CarmenBalber]
tom: don't like that wording, user agent's responsibility to send DNT signal but should instead be ?
17:13:21 [dsinger]
17:13:25 [dwainberg]
17:13:40 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: will take a stab at text, please comment on that
17:13:53 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
17:14:29 [CarmenBalber]
david: can argue for browser that sets DNT aggressively - user bought browser be/c DNT is aggressive, not sure should outlaw those models
17:14:30 [tl]
17:14:52 [jmayer]
justin, the branding and expectations definitions are close, but not the same
17:15:06 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: installed is now a proxy for choosing DNT, as long as users understand that's what they're choosing
17:15:55 [jmayer]
i think ACTION-25 will help distill the four options and expose their corner cases
17:15:56 [tl]
17:16:06 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:16:13 [CarmenBalber]
... but discussion is more around, for example, an ISPs inserting itself when user hasn't made an affirmative choice
17:16:15 [aleecia]
17:16:21 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
17:16:52 [jmayer]
17:17:03 [CarmenBalber]
dwainberg: agree w/concern about problem, think out of scope to dictate requirements on what intermediaries might do, propose moving to technical if necessary
17:17:12 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:17:39 [CarmenBalber]
jmayer: should have issue re what intermediaries have to do, unambiguously within scope
17:17:50 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: will send proposal to mailing list
17:18:53 [CarmenBalber]
... Sec 6.1 - proposal to drop issue 93, in scope, propose come back to discussion, having issue there doesn't imply a decision, note a lot of discussion
17:18:55 [WileyS]
17:19:05 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:19:24 [tl]
17:19:26 [tl]
17:19:34 [CarmenBalber]
shane: be able to set a better structure for the conversation?
17:19:56 [justin]
3 positions?
17:20:05 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: can capture some of what those issues are, editors can take first pass then refine from there
17:20:08 [tl]
17:20:32 [WileyS]
Out of Scope, Publishers should be able to modify service if user turns on DNT, Publishers should NOT be able to modify their service if user turns on DNT
17:20:42 [WileyS]
Other positions at a high-level?
17:21:00 [justin]
Right, thanks.
17:21:21 [jmayer]
just to clarify wileys, the second two options include the view that this is in scope
17:21:23 [tl]
17:21:27 [CarmenBalber]
... moving on, Sec 6.2 is interaction w/ other mechanisms in scope, I think so
17:21:36 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:21:49 [WileyS]
Yes - options 2 & 3 argue this is in scope and then take a position
17:22:15 [CarmenBalber]
Tom: clarification - who does ? represent
17:22:21 [Frank]
if a publisher honors DNT, they ARE modifying the service they are providing to users. For example, not serving ads targeted to the users interest IS modifying the service.
17:22:32 [WileyS]
I believe you (jmayer) and I agree on Option 2 and I'm curious why anyone would disagree with that
17:23:01 [jmayer]
Frank, I think the issue's about intentional degradation, not any change to service
17:23:03 [tl]
17:23:05 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: last, SEc 6.4 proposed to drop requirements for privacy policy disclosure, should cos have to note in privacy policy, or is header sufficient, best way to communicate w/users
17:23:24 [jmayer]
WileyS, I understand the arguments for the other two options
17:23:28 [WileyS]
To Frank - I believe what we mean by "Service" here is the content level service - meaning a publisher could modify the depth or breath of user access if they turn on DNT and do not allow an exception.
17:23:32 [CarmenBalber]
... again will ask editors to note discussion and options
17:23:42 [aleecia]
17:23:59 [justin]
17:24:04 [tl]
17:24:13 [jmayer]
WileyS, I think it would (or should) cover non-content stuff, e.g. flashing more ads
17:24:40 [CarmenBalber]
justin: question re process - if want something in document, please get to us within 24 hours
17:24:49 [jmayer]
(which, again, I think we agree publishers should be able to do)
17:24:52 [WileyS]
Agreed - that's fair - to make up the CPM loss from OBA ads a publisher could simply show more ads (argh)
17:24:53 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: yes, need text by thursday or won't get into doc
17:25:11 [tl]
i can't do in 24h
17:25:19 [CarmenBalber]
.. if you have action and cant do let us know
17:25:58 [justin]
I can handle explaining how the user is a second party
17:26:00 [CarmenBalber]
Tom: my action comments on insufficiency of well-known uri, review desc. of dom interface, explain how user is 2nd party, one missing (and another Carmen missed)
17:26:15 [CarmenBalber]
... could finish by tomorrow afternoon but not am
17:26:45 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: user 2nd party and comments on issue 4 we can take from you, can you take other two by noon?
17:26:58 [CarmenBalber]
tom: yes
17:27:05 [schunter]
17:27:09 [tl]
17:27:20 [aleecia]
ack justin
17:27:48 [Zakim]
17:27:58 [aleecia]
ack schunter
17:28:22 [CarmenBalber]
mattias: all assume editors will continue editing documents
17:29:07 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: will be a point where document is frozen so all talking about same doc monday morning
17:29:12 [CarmenBalber]
charles: will mtg have call-in
17:29:22 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: yes, also scribed in irc
17:29:47 [CarmenBalber]
mattias: would like to allow editors to continue working on doc after frozen
17:29:51 [CarmenBalber]
aleecia: ok
17:29:53 [aleecia]
17:30:22 [Zakim]
17:30:22 [CarmenBalber]
... text quickly to editors, frozen on thursday night
17:30:29 [schunter]
One approach for freezing is to post copies like spec-2011-11-26.html that contain a frozen version.
17:30:34 [Zakim]
17:30:37 [Zakim]
17:30:43 [Zakim]
17:30:44 [Zakim]
17:30:45 [WileyS]
17:30:47 [Zakim]
17:30:48 [Zakim]
17:30:48 [Zakim]
17:30:48 [Zakim]
17:30:48 [Zakim]
17:30:49 [Zakim]
17:30:50 [Zakim]
17:30:51 [Zakim]
17:30:54 [Zakim]
17:30:54 [clp]
17:30:56 [Zakim]
17:30:57 [Zakim]
17:30:58 [NinjaMarnau]
17:31:00 [Zakim]
- +1.202.263.aaff
17:31:02 [Zakim]
17:31:04 [Zakim]
17:31:06 [Zakim]
17:31:09 [Zakim]
17:31:10 [Zakim]
17:31:12 [Zakim]
17:31:14 [Zakim]
17:31:16 [Zakim]
17:31:18 [Zakim]
17:31:20 [Zakim]
17:31:21 [Zakim]
17:31:25 [tl]
aleecia, do you have any time right now?
17:31:25 [JohnSimpson]
Bye Bye
17:31:40 [aleecia]
Sorry, no - heading to my next call
17:31:41 [adrianba]
adrianba has left #dnt
17:31:52 [tl]
have fun!
17:31:52 [aleecia]
back-to-back fun
17:31:56 [aleecia]
17:31:59 [aleecia]
17:32:00 [tl]
17:32:11 [ksmith]
ksmith has left #DNT
17:32:33 [Zakim]
17:32:42 [tl]
no, this conference goes on and on, and i need some basics: time to eat, sleep, do my wg actions...
17:33:08 [aleecia]
17:33:23 [aleecia]
if you need no more than 5 minutes, can call me Right Now
17:33:36 [aleecia]
(other call starting late)
17:33:38 [tl]
no, want longer debrief
17:33:43 [aleecia]
ok, sorry
17:33:50 [tl]
any time tomorrow?
17:33:52 [aleecia]
can do later in the week
17:34:04 [aleecia]
yes - sort of
17:34:12 [tl]
how about friday?
17:34:15 [aleecia]
let's figure out by email, tomorrow gets complicated
17:34:34 [aleecia]
Friday: wide open.
17:34:40 [tl]
i'll send you an invite
17:34:48 [aleecia]
17:37:34 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, tl, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
17:37:35 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:37:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were aleecia, tl, dsriedel, Frank_BlueCava, kevint, ninja, dwainberg, [IBM_Watson], fielding, +1.650.862.aaaa, +1.916.641.aabb, +1.310.392.aacc, Heffernen, ChuckCurran,
17:37:44 [Zakim]
... alex, npdoty, Justin, efelten, Chris, dsinger, +385221aadd, Carmen, Patty, PederMagee, +1.508.655.aaee, JKaran, JohnSimpson, Sean, Joanne, clay_opa_cbs, HenryGoldstein, jmayer,
17:37:46 [Zakim]
... +1.202.263.aaff, karl, AmyC, adrianba, WileyS, BrianTs, [Microsoft]
17:43:35 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
17:48:23 [fielding]
fielding has left #dnt
18:11:31 [aleecia]
rrsagent, please create the minutes
18:11:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate aleecia
18:12:23 [aleecia]
rrsagent, make log public
18:29:11 [punderwood]
punderwood has joined #dnt
19:42:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt
20:21:54 [karl]
karl has joined #dnt
20:40:09 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt