15:55:12 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 15:55:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/26-dnt-irc 15:55:19 Zakim has joined #dnt 15:55:32 Zakim, this is dnt 15:55:32 ok, aleecia; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM 15:55:41 chair is schunter 15:55:48 npdoty has joined #dnt 15:55:48 Frank has joined #dnt 15:55:58 zakim, who is on the call please? 15:55:58 On the phone I see aleecia 15:56:09 dwainberg has joined #dnt 15:56:10 +tl 15:56:19 NinjaMarnau has joined #dnt 15:56:36 +dsriedel 15:56:40 rrsagent, pointer? 15:56:40 See http://www.w3.org/2011/10/26-dnt-irc#T15-56-40 15:56:48 zakim, mute me 15:56:48 dsriedel should now be muted 15:56:52 rrsagent, make logs public 15:57:12 +Frank_BlueCava 15:57:36 adrianba has joined #dnt 15:57:36 +kevint 15:57:42 trackbot, start meeting 15:57:44 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:57:46 Zakim, this will be 15:57:46 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:57:47 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 15:57:47 Date: 26 October 2011 15:58:11 JohnSimpson has joined #dnt 15:58:11 +ninja 15:58:15 the robots don't know how to talk to each other? 15:58:18 +dwainberg 15:58:39 zakim, this is dnt 15:58:39 aleecia, this was already T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM 15:58:40 ok, aleecia; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM 15:58:45 huh 15:58:58 occasionally the robots get confused, you know how it is 15:59:00 chuck has joined #dnt 15:59:07 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Oct/0195.html 15:59:09 justin has joined #dnt 15:59:11 what is this i don't even... 15:59:20 hefferjr has joined #dnt 15:59:21 +[IBM_Watson] 15:59:30 amyc has joined #dnt 15:59:44 Chris has joined #dnt 15:59:44 +fielding 15:59:50 + +1.650.862.aaaa 15:59:56 ksmith has joined #DNT 15:59:58 efelten has joined #dnt 15:59:58 + +1.916.641.aabb 16:00:03 + +1.310.392.aacc 16:00:06 +Heffernen 16:00:09 fielding has joined #dnt 16:00:09 +ChuckCurran 16:00:13 +alex 16:00:17 +npdoty 16:00:32 +Justin 16:00:47 +efelten 16:00:54 jkaran has joined #dnt 16:00:55 +Chris 16:00:55 dsinger_ has joined #dnt 16:01:00 alex has joined #dnt 16:01:07 +dsinger 16:01:12 Zakim, aaaa is Patty 16:01:14 +??P3 16:01:19 + +385221aadd 16:01:23 +Carmen 16:01:27 clp has joined #dnt 16:01:29 +Patty; got it 16:01:31 +PederMagee 16:01:41 + +1.508.655.aaee 16:01:49 +JKaran 16:01:51 CarmenBalber has joined #dnt 16:01:52 enewland has joined #dnt 16:01:52 -alex 16:01:58 Zakim, aacc is JohnSimpson 16:01:59 +JohnSimpson; got it 16:02:05 Here now. 16:02:11 zakim who is on the call 16:02:11 Zakim, who is here? 16:02:11 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 ... npdoty, Justin, efelten, Chris, dsinger (muted), +385221aadd, ??P3, Carmen, PederMagee, +1.508.655.aaee, JKaran 16:02:19 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 ... Frank, npdoty, Zakim, RRSAgent, aleecia, dsriedel, tl, joanne, mischat, karl, pde, hober, trackbot 16:02:29 +Sean 16:02:33 Zakim, aabb is Joanne 16:02:33 +Joanne; got it 16:02:35 +clay_opa_cbs 16:02:41 +alex 16:02:43 chuck has joined #dnt 16:03:04 clay has joined #dnt 16:03:05 Zakim, aaee is HenryGoldstein 16:03:05 +HenryGoldstein; got it 16:03:08 Zakim, hefferjr is Ronan Heffernan 16:03:08 I don't understand 'hefferjr is Ronan Heffernan', hefferjr 16:03:27 Zakim, heffejr is RonanHeffernan 16:03:27 sorry, hefferjr, I do not recognize a party named 'heffejr' 16:03:39 Zakim, hefferjr is RonanHeffernan 16:03:40 sorry, hefferjr, I do not recognize a party named 'hefferjr' 16:03:45 WileyS has joined #DNT 16:04:07 PederMagee has joined #dnt 16:04:09 zakim, who is on the phone 16:04:09 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', aleecia 16:04:14 zamik, who is here 16:04:19 zakim, who is here 16:04:19 aleecia, you need to end that query with '?' 16:04:29 (this is why I should never scribe :-) 16:04:36 schunter has joined #dnt 16:04:37 Zakim, who is here? 16:04:37 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 ... Justin, efelten, Chris, dsinger (muted), +385221aadd, ??P3, Carmen, PederMagee, HenryGoldstein, JKaran, Sean, clay_opa_cbs, alex 16:04:43 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 zakim, mute me 16:04:47 ... adrianba, NinjaMarnau, dwainberg, Frank, npdoty, Zakim, RRSAgent, aleecia, dsriedel, tl, joanne, mischat, karl, pde, hober, trackbot 16:04:50 aleecia should now be muted 16:04:51 +??P61 16:04:57 Chair: schunter 16:05:12 mute me 16:05:25 +[Microsoft] 16:05:34 +jmayer 16:05:41 Zakim, mute me 16:05:41 alex should now be muted 16:05:41 jmayer has joined #dnt 16:05:52 JC has joined #dnt 16:06:11 + +1.202.263.aaff 16:06:24 Carmen, I can help with the syntax, thanks for your help 16:06:35 scribenick: CarmenBalber 16:06:43 +??P66 16:06:49 Dial # again? 16:06:54 Zakim, code? 16:06:54 the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), npdoty 16:06:57 zakim, +??P66 is karl 16:06:57 sorry, karl, I do not recognize a party named '+??P66' 16:07:02 zakim, ??P66 is karl 16:07:02 +karl; got it 16:07:05 BrianTs has joined #DNT 16:07:09 henry has joined #dnt 16:07:15 next week no call 16:07:39 thank you david! 16:07:41 mattias: agenda, comments on minutes? 16:07:49 zakim, mute me 16:07:49 karl should now be muted 16:07:50 http://www.w3.org/2011/10/19-dnt-minutes 16:07:53 none 16:07:56 Lia has joined #dnt 16:07:57 minutes approved 16:08:08 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/open 16:08:30 mattias: action items 16:08:37 +AmyC 16:08:38 zakim, unmute me 16:08:39 aleecia should no longer be muted 16:08:43 +[Microsoft.a] 16:08:44 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 DNT compliance proposals - Aleecia? 16:08:58 zakim, [Microsoft.a] has me 16:08:58 +adrianba; got it 16:09:01 zakim, mute me 16:09:01 aleecia should now be muted 16:09:01 Aleecia: working on it 16:09:04 ACTION-16? 16:09:04 ACTION-16 -- Thomas Lowenthal to update mandatory response header proposal to acknowledge caching concerns -- due 2011-10-17 -- OPEN 16:09:04 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/16 16:09:06 +WileyS 16:09:21 Tom: not done 16:09:50 (before f2f meeting?) 16:09:56 Tom seems to be lost 16:09:58 tl, we can't hear you 16:10:14 yes, friday, this week, before the f2f 16:10:15 Looks like he's gone 16:10:19 punderwood has joined #dnt 16:10:30 ACTION-17? 16:10:30 ACTION-17 -- Shane Wiley to write a concrete proposal re 3rd party response. -- due 2011-10-26 -- OPEN 16:10:30 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/17 16:10:32 Mattias: Tom please send new due date 16:10:44 Tom: before end of week 16:11:05 ACTION-16 due 10/30 16:11:06 ACTION-16 Update mandatory response header proposal to acknowledge caching concerns due date now 10/30 16:11:11 ACTION-18? 16:11:11 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/18 16:11:11 (Tom, please update the date (click the pencil icon to edit)) 16:11:20 Jonathan: sent to list 16:11:23 close ACTION-18 16:11:23 ACTION-18 Write a summary of options for how 1st parties hear 3rd party status by tuesday closed 16:11:33 ACTION-20? 16:11:33 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/20 16:11:56 pde, are you on the phone? 16:12:08 Peter not yet on call, Mattias sending reminder 16:12:24 ACTION-21? 16:12:24 ACTION-21 -- Jonathan Mayer to writes up a third party interaction bit for the doc -- due 2011-10-26 -- OPEN 16:12:24 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/21 16:12:26 Jonathan: Action 21- sent to list 16:12:29 close ACTION-21 16:12:29 ACTION-21 Writes up a third party interaction bit for the doc closed 16:12:56 Mattias: Santa Clara agenda 16:13:07 -[Microsoft] 16:13:07 Topic: Santa Clara agenda 16:13:09 q+ 16:13:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Oct/0156.html 16:13:14 zakim, unmute me 16:13:14 aleecia should no longer be muted 16:13:20 ack aleecia 16:13:20 Agenda looks good to me 16:13:38 W_ has joined #dnt 16:13:58 Aleecia: expect slight time changes, email to list re self-hosted dinner 16:14:11 ack me 16:14:12 ... dinner is Monday night 16:14:29 zakim, mute me 16:14:29 aleecia should now be muted 16:14:44 Mattias: discuss strawman docs 16:14:49 Topic: Tracking Preference Expression strawman 16:14:58 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html 16:15:45 (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 q+ 16:16:01 issue management, general feedback, if issues off track etc 16:16:28 ... consider issues under review, postpone or other action 16:16:55 q? 16:17:18 Roy: sections on general intro, determining user preference, what browser needs to do 16:18:02 ... request context, how server should respond, selective opt-in auditing, determining 1st party role 16:18:25 +[Microsoft] 16:18:32 zakim mute me 16:18:34 ... Intro - look for things we should or shouldn't be standardizing 16:19:05 ... skip notations, determining user preference issues we haven't discussed 16:19:07 Introduction not normative, but a motivating section, so feel free to send feedback to fielding 16:19:11 Zakim, [Microsoft] has BrianTs 16:19:11 +BrianTs; got it 16:19:35 zakim unmute me 16:19:59 Mattias: discussion on issues in 1st section - Issue 13, propose postponing 16:20:02 vincent has joined #dnt 16:20:37 +q 16:20:53 +??P51 16:21:16 Roy: answered this - don't need to resolve 16:21:22 Mattias: move to under review 16:21:24 q+ 16:21:28 Sounds good 16:21:37 zakim, who is speaking? 16:21:39 ack WileyS 16:21:49 aleecia, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 16:22:07 (but Nick's right: that was Shane Wiley) 16:22:18 Roy: requirements only kick in if allow you to browse web 16:22:35 ?: does lang dist single vs cross-site? yes 16:22:41 I think it is more that that app does not need DNT rather than comply, 16:22:52 s/?:/WileyS:/ 16:23:02 Mattias: under review, freeze for time, decide to close later 16:23:40 ... Issue 4? 16:23:43 q? 16:23:48 ack tl 16:23:58 q- 16:24:03 ?: 4, 40, 68 out of scope for working group, 64 appropriate for compliance doc 16:24:12 +q 16:24:13 s/?:/tl:/ 16:24:15 issue-64? 16:24:15 ISSUE-64 -- How does preference management work with DNT -- raised 16:24:15 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/64 16:24:23 I don't agree with issue 4 being out of scope 16:24:24 issue-4? 16:24:24 ISSUE-4 -- What is the default for DNT in client configuration (opt-in or opt-out)? -- open 16:24:24 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/4 16:24:31 q+ 16:24:34 +q 16:24:35 Agree, out of scope 16:24:36 q? 16:24:43 Mattias: Tom says 4 out of scope be/c user agent related 16:24:49 Q+ 16:25:11 FOCUS on ISSUE-4 first. 16:25:20 zakim, unmute me 16:25:20 aleecia should no longer be muted 16:25:26 ack aleecia 16:25:28 ack WileyS 16:25:51 q+ 16:25:56 q- 16:25:58 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 zakim, mute me 16:26:09 aleecia should now be muted 16:26:15 q? 16:26:18 +1 - agree with Aleecia (although I'd love for us all to agree to a default of "off") 16:26:23 ack dsinger_ 16:26:23 q? 16:26:39 Q- 16:26:41 q- 16:27:06 dsinger: don't see how default can be anything other than status quo before we issue spec - out of our scope 16:27:31 q? 16:27:34 ack fielding 16:27:39 ?: disagree that's out of scope 16:27:40 q+ 16:27:47 s/?:/fielding:/ 16:27:50 ? is Roy Fielding 16:28:00 q+ 16:28:02 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 q+ 16:28:05 Roy: obviously in scope for protocol to say whether you send header or not 16:28:16 +q 16:28:21 +q 16:28:22 q+ to ask about out of scope on default configuration 16:28:37 Could just be empty, no? Leave the DNT:. 16:28:41 yup. 16:28:43 -q 16:28:46 Yes: don't need to send anything 16:28:50 Mattias: see your point, let's leave open, your point is you have to know what to send 16:28:52 zakim, unmute me 16:28:52 aleecia should no longer be muted 16:29:03 ... if install browser, does it always send DNT1 or DNT0 16:29:09 see our ietf draft for a formalization of the idea 16:29:20 the DNT: 0 state != the no DNT state 16:29:26 q? 16:29:26 q? 16:29:29 ack tl 16:29:35 Yes. We DO need to document what no DNT request means, even if we say it means little. 16:29:52 jmayer: agree fully 16:30:06 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 s/jmayer:/jmayer,/ 16:30:50 Mattias: Roy's point - need to explain how user preference linked w/field 16:31:06 "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 q- 16:31:42 -q 16:31:43 define the definition, then user agent express user preferences, no need for us to additionally describe what user should do 16:32:01 q? 16:32:02 s/define/tl: define/ 16:32:10 so issue-4 postponed? 16:32:10 q? 16:32:35 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 Aleecia: Turning on sends 1 16:32:46 Aleecia: if user turns on DNT send 1, turns off DNT send 0, if no decision then don't send anything 16:32:47 Turning off sends 0 16:32:53 Doing nothing sends nothing 16:33:28 ... 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 a minor point on ui - if we have a dnt: 0 state, that should probably be a separate checkbox 16:33:54 yes, what Aleecia said is what I think should be in the spec. 16:34:09 +1 to Aleecia 16:34:12 +1 16:34:15 +1 to Aleecia 16:34:15 check/uncheck dnt = DNT: 0 would be a really bad ui 16:34:23 ? 16:34:26 q? 16:34:28 ack me 16:34:34 zakim mute me 16:34:49 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 action: aleecia to write up proposal for issue-4 based on what we discussed in boston due tomorrow 16:35:08 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 q+ 16:35:25 q- 16:35:27 Mattias: Issue 40 - enable for session or permanent, I suggest out of scope bec difference user agents can handle differently 16:35:30 agree. 16:35:32 issue-40? 16:35:32 ISSUE-40 -- Enable Do Not Track just for a session, rather than being stored -- raised 16:35:32 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/40 16:35:50 Agreed - out of scope - a web browser UI decision 16:35:53 ... move as out of scope 16:36:04 +[Apple] 16:36:20 dsinger has joined #dnt 16:36:21 q+ 16:36:25 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 -dsinger 16:36:42 zakim, [apple] has dsinger 16:36:42 +dsinger; got it 16:36:42 ... does user intend to delete history or just prevent tracking during that session 16:36:55 Mattias: my understanding just this session 16:37:12 ACTION: tl to write explanation of why ISSUE-4 is an out-of-scope user interface matter by friday. 16:37:12 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 q+ 16:37:20 david: if per-session DNT signal may not effect prior browsing history 16:37:35 Mattias: different issue, issue 40 out of scope 16:37:36 issue-64? 16:37:36 ISSUE-64 -- How does preference management work with DNT -- raised 16:37:36 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/64 16:38:06 Roy?: re setting preferences on websites, for example choosing a language on a site 16:38:11 please add yourself to the queue rather than just speaking 16:38:16 +q 16:38:23 issue-64? 16:38:23 ISSUE-64 -- How does preference management work with DNT -- raised 16:38:23 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/64 16:38:28 +q 16:38:43 ack tl 16:38:46 ack clp 16:38:54 +[Microsoft.aa] 16:39:02 Charles: section d at end out of scope or proposed issues should remain in document with descriptions of why 16:39:15 in appendix D 16:39:26 Mattias: good idea, appendix of closed etc issues with rationale 16:39:57 Roy: could Tom edit description of issue 16:40:41 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 ... clear, doesn't need modification 16:41:26 I suggested an update 16:41:28 q+ 16:41:31 we can copy note from ifette into the Description field of issue 16:41:35 ack WileyS 16:42:05 Wiley: how does site management interact w/dnt, preference management is confusing 16:42:43 q+ 16:42:51 issue-68? 16:42:51 ISSUE-68 -- Should there be functionality for syncing preferences about tracking across different browsers? -- raised 16:42:51 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/68 16:43:05 +1 16:43:11 +1 16:43:11 Mattias: issue 68 - impression to say user agent and out of scope 16:43:18 can't think why this is in scope 16:43:33 ... out of scope 16:44:03 ... timeout for this doc 16:44:17 ... could send proposals to mailing list to see if there's consensus, thoughts? 16:44:41 ... want to leave time for second doc, suggest continue in this mode but will send proposals to mailing list 16:45:07 dsinger: not concerned w/issued ID'd so far, more concerned we failed to identify issues 16:45:11 q+ 16:45:34 ... focus for moment on making sure all the issues are on the table 16:45:56 Mattias: agree as long as new issues in scope 16:46:41 fine 16:47:15 ... preference expression interest header is ?, but ongoing open discussion on response headers 16:48:13 ... still looking for arguments why a ? doesn't do the job (sorry, didn't catch phrase - Carmen) 16:48:31 q? 16:48:54 (Tom, you still want to be in queue?) 16:48:55 well known URI that contains a file that says to what extent a site follows DNT. 16:48:57 Roy: html DOM interfaces copied from Microsoft, not sure what other browsers implemented, browser cos please review 16:49:05 there's a non-standard dom property in firefox now, i think the same approach 16:49:08 but it may go away 16:49:17 q? 16:49:21 q+ 16:49:30 q? 16:49:32 mattias: final words on tracking preference spec? 16:49:34 q- 16:49:54 Clay: how many issues to list? 16:50:20 Mattias: hope not many be/c most open 16:50:48 aleecia: start w/her email summary from 1am 16:51:05 ... first: globally discussion re consumers vs citizens vs users - terminology 16:51:11 matthias, please do one issue per mail so that tracker keeps them organized. 16:51:19 q+ 16:51:24 ... best bet users and people, avoid consumers and citizens 16:51:26 q- 16:51:32 ack clay 16:51:41 ack tl 16:51:45 I'm fine with users/people, but I don't think we should spend a lot of time on this. 16:52:05 tom: agree, non-normative language 16:52:08 Agree with Justin 16:52:19 users/people/visitors 16:52:23 Aleecia: anyone disagree? 16:52:31 im fine with it 16:52:42 ... closed 16:53:03 ... phrase 'behavioral tracking' v 'tracking' - redundant? 16:53:09 +1 16:53:10 +q 16:53:13 ... suggest use "behavioral tracking", thoughts? 16:53:16 ack jmayer 16:53:18 +q 16:53:30 -kevint 16:53:37 jonathan: concern that behavioral has a connotatio that profiling is happening 16:53:43 How about "Historical"? 16:53:50 q+ 16:53:54 ... many of the proposals don't include a profiling requirement, may be confusing 16:53:55 Historical Tracking? 16:54:00 Al: good point 16:54:00 ack clp 16:54:03 q? 16:54:04 q+ 16:54:17 charles: might want to use a word that isn't already associated with a connotation, historical is a suggestion 16:54:30 ... need a glossary 16:54:37 tracking should be fine if well defined. 16:54:38 passive tracking 16:54:43 +q 16:54:44 ack tl 16:55:11 tom: behavioral tracking might be inconsistent w/definitions, defer until definitions are more precise 16:55:26 If we're going to come back to this, then suggest staying with "behavioral tracking" for now 16:55:29 aleecia: agree 16:55:45 ack JohnSimpson 16:55:46 john: behavioral tracking is a subset of tracking 16:56:01 ack WileyS 16:56:05 ... might mean something broader 16:56:35 -Joanne 16:56:35 q+ 16:56:38 q+ 16:56:43 ?: 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 Roger 16:57:03 q? 16:57:06 s/?/WileyS/ 16:57:06 aleecia: may use different term later, note controversy and move on 16:57:10 ack karl 16:57:10 ach karl 16:57:54 ack dsinger 16:57:57 karl: behavioral tracking - don't have shared understanding of meaning 16:58:12 zakim, mute me 16:58:12 karl should now be muted 16:58:19 david: adjective before tracking opens can of worms - 'my kind of tracking should be exempt 16:58:34 aleecia: ongoing issue 16:58:55 …or rather 'my kind of tracking is not XXX tracking, and it's XXX tracking that is controlled by this specification' 16:58:56 ... Sec 2.1 - does internet require exchange of data across servers? 16:59:13 ... at very least IP address is going out, but not sure this is a big issue 16:59:28 ... suggest leave as is 16:59:53 ... Sec 2.1 doesn't address what people are concerned about, can flesh out section more but not problem moving forward 16:59:57 Yes, Intro and Scope are bare bones at the moment --- we wanted to focus on the substantive provisions/. 17:00:19 q+ 17:00:27 ... Sec 3.2 if 3rd party anybody but 1st party, then users are 3rd parties. 17:00:40 ... open question if 1st and 3rd parties should be what we're defining 17:00:42 ack tl 17:00:49 tom: mostly definitional, user is 2nd party 17:00:57 q+ 17:01:02 q+ 17:01:08 ... raise issue and discuss on list, potentially contentious 17:01:24 aleecia: current def of 1st, users 2nd, 3rd parties are anything but 1st or 2nd 17:01:26 ack dsinger 17:01:35 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 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 aleecia: may have 1st party def that's not technically enforced, for example idea that things have common branding 17:02:23 domain names and businesses are orthogonal. 17:02:31 .. example IBM owns lotus, and everyone understands this 17:02:51 ... can have spec that's still one party based on user understanding 17:02:57 ack schunter 17:02:59 parties are collecting info, users are providing info 17:03:13 mattias: not big deal that you can't determine 1st party technically 17:03:34 q+ to ask about the disconnect between the policy and the technology 17:03:42 ... 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 q+ 17:03:48 q+ 17:04:21 -fielding 17:04:25 ... if interacting w/site it's a 1st party and if not 3rd party 17:04:44 ack karl 17:04:45 aleecia: mattias take as action item for friday? 17:04:46 ach karl 17:04:46 karl, you wanted to ask about the disconnect between the policy and the technology 17:04:48 mattias: yes 17:05:07 action: mattias to write 1st v. 3rd party on basis of interaction by friday 17:05:07 Sorry, couldn't find user - mattias 17:05:08 q+ 17:05:12 karl: if can't tie meaning to technical specs then we can't implement 17:05:21 -??P61 17:05:37 ... things can achieve w/DNT header won't make sense for users, users lose trust in browser, system 17:05:47 q? 17:06:13 zakim, mute me 17:06:13 karl should now be muted 17:06:49 aleecia: won't resolve now, tom did you want to propose resolving by defining user as 2nd party? 17:06:55 tom: can write up but doesn't resolve 17:07:25 +q 17:07:34 aleecia: make suggestions about 1st/3rd party distinctions to mailing list, editors please incorporate into document 17:07:53 q- 17:07:54 q? 17:07:58 -q 17:08:01 q- 17:08:15 ack justin 17:08:38 justin: most controversial - common branding or corporate entity rule, would like more argument on which we should choose 17:08:40 +q 17:08:55 ack jmayer 17:09:24 jonathan: 3 options, common branding, business entities/affiliates, we at stanford use a reasonable expectations definition 17:09:26 q+ 17:09:27 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 ack tl 17:09:48 aleecia: common branding and reasonable expectations aren't the same, flesh out the distinction 17:09:55 tom: another approach same origin policy 17:10:05 -npdoty 17:10:07 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 i'll take it 17:10:26 tl, do you mean CORS? 17:10:31 aleecia: jonathan taking action, try to do by friday 17:10:41 - +385221aadd 17:10:43 10-4 17:10:59 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 karl, i mean "anything not on the domain in the user's address bar is a 3p" 17:11:11 Fine 17:11:14 ... next, attempts to define consent, ask editors to add the discussion to the document 17:11:16 q? 17:11:45 tl, hmm what about businesses sharing the same domain name? 17:12:03 ,,, 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 q+ 17:12:27 I took this from Jonathan's IETF draft --- Jonathan, do you want to defend? 17:12:32 q? 17:12:35 ack tl 17:12:37 ... only send what user expresses, must send what user expresses 17:12:40 Or maybe it was from somewhere else . . . 17:12:58 -??P51 17:13:16 action: jmayer to sketch four approaches to 1p vs. 3p distinction due friday 17:13:16 Created ACTION-25 - Sketch four approaches to 1p vs. 3p distinction due friday [on Jonathan Mayer - due 2011-11-02]. 17:13:18 tom: don't like that wording, user agent's responsibility to send DNT signal but should instead be ? 17:13:21 q+ 17:13:25 q+ 17:13:40 aleecia: will take a stab at text, please comment on that 17:13:53 ack dsinger 17:14:29 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 q+ 17:14:52 justin, the branding and expectations definitions are close, but not the same 17:15:06 aleecia: installed is now a proxy for choosing DNT, as long as users understand that's what they're choosing 17:15:55 i think ACTION-25 will help distill the four options and expose their corner cases 17:15:56 q- 17:16:06 ack tl 17:16:13 ... but discussion is more around, for example, an ISPs inserting itself when user hasn't made an affirmative choice 17:16:15 q? 17:16:21 ack dwainberg 17:16:52 +q 17:17:03 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 ack jmayer 17:17:39 jmayer: should have issue re what intermediaries have to do, unambiguously within scope 17:17:50 aleecia: will send proposal to mailing list 17:18:53 ... 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 +q 17:19:05 ack WileyS 17:19:24 -q 17:19:26 +q 17:19:34 shane: be able to set a better structure for the conversation? 17:19:56 3 positions? 17:20:05 aleecia: can capture some of what those issues are, editors can take first pass then refine from there 17:20:08 q- 17:20:32 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 Other positions at a high-level? 17:21:00 Right, thanks. 17:21:21 just to clarify wileys, the second two options include the view that this is in scope 17:21:23 q+ 17:21:27 ... moving on, Sec 6.2 is interaction w/ other mechanisms in scope, I think so 17:21:36 ack tl 17:21:49 Yes - options 2 & 3 argue this is in scope and then take a position 17:22:15 Tom: clarification - who does ? represent 17:22:21 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 I believe you (jmayer) and I agree on Option 2 and I'm curious why anyone would disagree with that 17:23:01 Frank, I think the issue's about intentional degradation, not any change to service 17:23:03 defer++ 17:23:05 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 WileyS, I understand the arguments for the other two options 17:23:28 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 ... again will ask editors to note discussion and options 17:23:42 q? 17:23:59 q+ 17:24:04 q+ 17:24:13 WileyS, I think it would (or should) cover non-content stuff, e.g. flashing more ads 17:24:40 justin: question re process - if want something in document, please get to us within 24 hours 17:24:49 (which, again, I think we agree publishers should be able to do) 17:24:52 Agreed - that's fair - to make up the CPM loss from OBA ads a publisher could simply show more ads (argh) 17:24:53 aleecia: yes, need text by thursday or won't get into doc 17:25:11 i can't do in 24h 17:25:19 .. if you have action and cant do let us know 17:25:58 I can handle explaining how the user is a second party 17:26:00 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 ... could finish by tomorrow afternoon but not am 17:26:45 aleecia: user 2nd party and comments on issue 4 we can take from you, can you take other two by noon? 17:26:58 tom: yes 17:27:05 +q 17:27:09 q- 17:27:20 ack justin 17:27:48 -clay_opa_cbs 17:27:58 ack schunter 17:28:22 mattias: all assume editors will continue editing documents 17:29:07 aleecia: will be a point where document is frozen so all talking about same doc monday morning 17:29:12 charles: will mtg have call-in 17:29:22 aleecia: yes, also scribed in irc 17:29:47 mattias: would like to allow editors to continue working on doc after frozen 17:29:51 aleecia: ok 17:29:53 q? 17:30:22 -Frank_BlueCava 17:30:22 ... text quickly to editors, frozen on thursday night 17:30:29 One approach for freezing is to post copies like spec-2011-11-26.html that contain a frozen version. 17:30:34 -PederMagee 17:30:37 -Chris 17:30:43 -ChuckCurran 17:30:44 -Sean 17:30:45 Quit 17:30:47 -JKaran 17:30:48 -efelten 17:30:48 -??P3 17:30:48 -AmyC 17:30:48 -Carmen 17:30:49 -ninja 17:30:50 -dwainberg 17:30:51 -Justin 17:30:54 -[Microsoft.a] 17:30:54 bye 17:30:56 -Heffernen 17:30:57 -jmayer 17:30:58 bye 17:31:00 - +1.202.263.aaff 17:31:02 -dsriedel 17:31:04 -[Apple] 17:31:06 -WileyS 17:31:09 -Patty 17:31:10 -HenryGoldstein 17:31:12 -JohnSimpson 17:31:14 -alex 17:31:16 -karl 17:31:18 -[IBM_Watson] 17:31:20 -[Microsoft] 17:31:21 -[Microsoft.aa] 17:31:25 aleecia, do you have any time right now? 17:31:25 Bye Bye 17:31:40 Sorry, no - heading to my next call 17:31:41 adrianba has left #dnt 17:31:52 have fun! 17:31:52 back-to-back fun 17:31:56 thanks... 17:31:59 tonight? 17:32:00 =] 17:32:11 ksmith has left #DNT 17:32:33 -aleecia 17:32:42 no, this conference goes on and on, and i need some basics: time to eat, sleep, do my wg actions... 17:33:08 understood. 17:33:23 if you need no more than 5 minutes, can call me Right Now 17:33:36 (other call starting late) 17:33:38 no, want longer debrief 17:33:43 ok, sorry 17:33:50 any time tomorrow? 17:33:52 can do later in the week 17:34:04 yes - sort of 17:34:12 how about friday? 17:34:15 let's figure out by email, tomorrow gets complicated 17:34:34 Friday: wide open. 17:34:40 i'll send you an invite 17:34:48 brilliant 17:37:34 disconnecting the lone participant, tl, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM 17:37:35 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended 17:37:39 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 ... 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 ... +1.202.263.aaff, karl, AmyC, adrianba, WileyS, BrianTs, [Microsoft] 17:43:35 mischat has joined #dnt 17:48:23 fielding has left #dnt 18:11:31 rrsagent, please create the minutes 18:11:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/26-dnt-minutes.html aleecia 18:12:23 rrsagent, make log public 18:29:11 punderwood has joined #dnt 19:42:46 Zakim has left #dnt 20:21:54 karl has joined #dnt 20:40:09 tl has joined #dnt