IRC log of dnt on 2011-11-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:59:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:59:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:59:55 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
16:59:55 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:59:56 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:59:56 [trackbot]
Date: 30 November 2011
16:59:59 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:00:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.949.483.aadd
17:00:31 [Zakim]
17:00:33 [enewland]
enewland has joined #dnt
17:00:34 [ileana]
ileana has joined #dnt
17:00:47 [Zakim]
17:00:51 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
17:00:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aaee
17:01:03 [Zakim]
17:01:07 [Zakim]
17:01:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.301.270.aaff
17:01:14 [tl]
i think this building must be made from nothing but faraday cages
17:01:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.269.aagg
17:01:20 [Chris]
Chris has joined #dnt
17:01:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aahh
17:01:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.862.aaii
17:01:39 [Zakim]
17:01:41 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
17:01:46 [chuck]
17:01:49 [Frank_]
aadd is Frank G at BlueCava
17:01:50 [Zakim]
+ +3249434aajj
17:01:59 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
17:01:59 [npdoty]
Zakim, aadd is FrankG_BlueCava
17:02:01 [Zakim]
17:02:02 [tl]
zakim aaee is Chuck
17:02:03 [Zakim]
+FrankG_BlueCava; got it
17:02:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.734.aakk
17:02:10 [hefferjr]
aabb is hefferjr
17:02:18 [efelten]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, +1.646.825.aaaa, +1.813.366.aabb, WileyS, +1.202.835.aacc, efelten, FrankG_BlueCava, ??P56, npdoty, +1.202.326.aaee, Ted, fielding, +1.301.270.aaff,
17:02:19 [npdoty]
Zakim, aagg is SueG
17:02:24 [hefferjr]
zakim aabb is hefferjr
17:02:27 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
17:02:29 [Zakim]
... +1.425.269.aagg, +1.646.654.aahh, +1.650.862.aaii, Justin, +3249434aajj, [Mozilla], +1.415.734.aakk
17:02:34 [Zakim]
+SueG; got it
17:02:40 [efelten]
Zakim, aaee is PederMagee
17:02:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.214.aall - is perhaps SungOk_You?
17:02:50 [Zakim]
+PederMagee; got it
17:02:51 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaee is pmagee
17:02:53 [KevinT]
zakim, aakk is KevinT
17:02:53 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
17:02:58 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
17:03:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.627.aamm
17:03:08 [Zakim]
sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
17:03:10 [Zakim]
+KevinT; got it
17:03:12 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
17:03:14 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
17:03:14 [carmenb]
carmenb has joined #dnt
17:03:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.281.aann
17:03:19 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
17:03:20 [Zakim]
17:03:32 [efelten]
Zakim, aacc is chuck
17:03:32 [bryan]
present+ Bryan_Sullivan
17:03:34 [Zakim]
+chuck; got it
17:03:57 [kimon]
kimon has joined #dnt
17:04:02 [Zakim]
+ +385221aaoo
17:04:05 [npdoty]
agenda should be in email, I don't have a working link at the moment
17:04:14 [Zakim]
17:04:14 [pmagee]
pmagee has joined #dnt
17:04:15 [tedleung]
zakim, Ted is tedleung
17:04:20 [Zakim]
+tedleung; got it
17:04:30 [bryan]
Zakim, aann is bryan
17:04:30 [Zakim]
+bryan; got it
17:04:34 [npdoty]
volunteers for scribe?
17:04:39 [Zakim]
17:04:58 [Zakim]
17:05:13 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
17:05:17 [npdoty]
scribenick: bryan
17:05:34 [bryan]
Topic: Agenda
17:05:51 [npdoty]
17:05:51 [Zakim]
17:05:52 [johnsimpson]
having trouble getting into phone bridge. will keep dialing
17:06:00 [bryan]
Topic: minutes of last call
17:06:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.744.aapp
17:06:29 [bryan]
RESOLUTION: minutes are approved
17:06:33 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
17:06:36 [bryan]
Topic: next F2F
17:07:18 [bryan]
Next meeting details presented
17:07:32 [alex]
Zakim, mute me
17:07:32 [Zakim]
alex should now be muted
17:07:33 [Lia]
Lia has joined #dnt
17:07:34 [npdoty]
17:07:51 [johnsimpson]
call bridge repeatedly won't let me complete call in..
17:07:56 [Zakim]
17:08:08 [npdoty]
meeting will be Tuesday 24 January until Thursday 26 January
17:08:11 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft] has adrianba
17:08:11 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
17:08:25 [aleecia]
Email re: f2f went out this morning
17:08:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.978.944.aaqq
17:08:37 [npdoty]
the concurrent meeting is
17:08:51 [Zakim]
17:08:55 [johnsimpson]
in now
17:08:59 [bryan]
Discussion of conference
17:09:03 [npdoty]
chair: schunter
17:09:08 [johnsimpson]
zakim mute me
17:09:18 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute johnsimpson
17:09:18 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should now be muted
17:09:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.516.376.aarr
17:09:28 [bryan]
justin: large European conference on privacy
17:09:42 [npdoty]
we could have a potential outreach session on Friday at the cpdp conference
17:10:27 [npdoty]
17:10:31 [Zakim]
17:10:36 [bryan]
Topic: open issue cleanup
17:10:49 [Zakim]
17:10:52 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is speaking?
17:10:56 [Frank]
Frank has joined #dnt
17:11:03 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dsriedel (4%), PederMagee (15%)
17:11:05 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
17:11:05 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
17:11:15 [andyzei]
andyzei has joined #dnt
17:11:21 [npdoty]
17:11:21 [trackbot]
ISSUE-4 -- What is the default for DNT in client configuration (opt-in or opt-out)? -- pending review
17:11:21 [trackbot]
17:11:23 [johnsimpson]
am haring nothing
17:11:30 [dsriedel]
me neither
17:11:33 [johnsimpson]
am hearing nothing.
17:11:34 [tl]
the rest is silence
17:11:37 [dsriedel]
17:11:43 [dsriedel]
I hear you know
17:11:48 [johnsimpson]
zakim unmute me
17:11:57 [bryan]
Matthias: to close issues asap
17:12:07 [bryan]
(matthias dropped off)
17:12:13 [npdoty]
17:12:14 [trackbot]
ISSUE-13 -- What are the requirements for DNT on apps/native software in addition to browsers? -- pending review
17:12:14 [trackbot]
17:12:22 [npdoty]
17:12:23 [trackbot]
ISSUE-78 -- What is the difference between absence of DNT header and DNT = 0? -- pending review
17:12:23 [trackbot]
17:12:25 [bryan]
Issue 4: Default for DNT
17:12:34 [bryan]
Issue 13...
17:12:44 [Zakim]
17:12:51 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
17:13:18 [tl]
17:13:27 [johnsimpson]
zakim, unmute me
17:13:28 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should no longer be muted
17:13:49 [bryan]
matthias: text proposals already
17:13:53 [bryan]
17:14:07 [npdoty]
ack bryan
17:14:20 [johnsimpson]
17:14:21 [npdoty]
bryan: would prefer to have some time to review issues before they're closed
17:14:30 [bryan]
bryan: would prefer to have a few days to review
17:14:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.508.655.aass
17:14:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.619.aatt
17:14:48 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
17:14:48 [bryan]
matthias: to send an email on closure pending review
17:15:03 [npdoty]
ack johnsimpson
17:15:24 [bryan]
john: language is related to FPWD
17:15:41 [johnsimpson]
zakim mute me
17:15:42 [bryan]
@@@: notes on the issues will clarify the background
17:15:51 [npdoty]
17:15:54 [tl]
agreed. saying which issues will be closed in an agenda at 2am the night before the call is a little late
17:15:57 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute johnsimpson
17:15:57 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should now be muted
17:15:59 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute me
17:15:59 [Zakim]
npdoty should now be muted
17:16:28 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
17:16:53 [fielding]
17:16:57 [bryan]
Topic: Open Issues
17:17:11 [fielding]
17:17:21 [bryan]
matthias: look at left over issues and plan for the rest
17:17:24 [npdoty]
17:17:24 [trackbot]
ISSUE-27 -- How should the "opt back in" mechanism be designed? -- open
17:17:24 [trackbot]
17:17:28 [npdoty]
17:17:28 [trackbot]
ISSUE-51 -- Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal -- open
17:17:28 [trackbot]
17:17:32 [npdoty]
17:17:32 [trackbot]
ISSUE-95 -- May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user? -- open
17:17:32 [trackbot]
17:17:36 [npdoty]
17:17:36 [trackbot]
ISSUE-87 -- Should there be an option for the server to respond with "I don't know what my policy is" -- open
17:17:37 [trackbot]
17:17:40 [bryan]
... Issue 27, 51, 95, 87
17:18:46 [tl]
can we end with issue 27?
17:18:50 [bryan]
shane: Issue 22 may be too meaty, put at the end
17:19:02 [npdoty]
s/Issue 22/Issue 27/
17:19:09 [tl]
17:19:27 [bryan]
17:20:01 [bryan]
matthias: Issue 51
17:20:16 [bryan]
..ISSUE-51: Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal
17:20:19 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
17:20:24 [fielding]
17:20:25 [WileyS]
17:20:26 [npdoty]
17:20:28 [tl]
17:20:37 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
17:20:38 [BrianTs]
BrianTs has joined #dnt
17:20:42 [Zakim]
17:20:48 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
17:20:49 [WileyS]
17:21:03 [rvaneijk]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is rvaneijk
17:21:03 [Zakim]
+rvaneijk; got it
17:21:10 [npdoty]
ack tl
17:21:13 [aleecia]
17:21:19 [Zakim]
17:21:23 [fielding]
17:21:29 [bryan]
npdoty: impression that the consensus was "yes" as per the draft sent to the list
17:21:38 [npdoty]
17:21:43 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:21:43 [npdoty]
17:21:56 [BrianTs]
Zakim, [Microsoft.a] has BrianTs
17:21:56 [Zakim]
+BrianTs; got it
17:22:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.347.689.aauu
17:22:22 [npdoty]
Zakim, unmute me
17:22:22 [Zakim]
npdoty should no longer be muted
17:22:38 [bryan]
WileyS: agree, we had come to consensus that 1st party must ack the user that the signal was received and response etc
17:22:45 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
17:22:47 [npdoty]
ack fielding
17:22:50 [aleecia]
ack fielding
17:22:57 [johnsimpson]
+1 on consensus on 51
17:23:08 [bryan]
roy: disagree on consensus - see no reason for 1st party to respond
17:23:10 [tl]
17:23:20 [schunter]
17:23:20 [WileyS]
17:23:26 [npdoty]
ack tl
17:23:39 [dwainberg]
17:24:04 [bryan]
tl: actively blocking or just think it's not a good idea?
17:24:21 [tl]
17:24:22 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
17:24:30 [bryan]
roy: expressing disapproval - would prefer some justification for this rather extensive change to HTTP, not yet deployed
17:25:12 [bryan]
tl: impression that consensus is to move forward, no sustained objections.
17:25:43 [bryan]
matthias: need text proposal with justifications, with details e.g. restrictions
17:25:47 [chapell]
chapell has joined #dnt
17:25:50 [npdoty]
if roy is looking for justifications, I think there are some that have been expressed, right?
17:26:04 [aleecia]
Nick, I do believe so, yes
17:26:21 [bryan]
tl: proposal sent three weeks ago, not much discussion but no one suggested blocking it
17:26:33 [npdoty]
fielding, did you not see any justifications? or did you not agree with the thinking?
17:26:34 [fielding]
17:26:49 [Frank_]
17:26:55 [ksmith]
17:26:56 [bryan]
... use cases have been proposed on the list, with discussion but no blocking objections
17:27:17 [bryan]
roy: repeat unless there is a substantial reason for the header, it won't be there
17:27:30 [WileyS]
Please honor the queue :-)
17:27:39 [npdoty]
17:27:41 [aleecia]
ack fielding
17:27:43 [bryan]
tl: believe a substantial need has been demonstrated in F2F and on the list
17:28:02 [rvaneijk]
I have read the VARY usecase Roy has put forward several times and agree that caching is something into account
17:28:25 [bryan]
matthias: propose to postpone discussion, and review emails with Roy
17:28:26 [tl]
the current proposal takes caching into account
17:28:43 [bryan]
... and whether header is needed on all responses
17:28:56 [WileyS]
Agreed - not all responses - just those not subject to caching - that'll be more than enough
17:28:57 [Frank_]
Small websites are unlikely to respond to a DNT header. What are the implications of that?
17:28:59 [dwainberg]
17:29:00 [bryan]
... read Issue 51 as whether 1st party should send any response at all
17:29:13 [schunter]
17:29:15 [schunter]
17:29:17 [Frank_]
17:29:25 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:29:25 [fielding]
I also don't believe it has any functional value in accomplishing the task of the protocol (telling the server what the client's expression is)
17:29:26 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
17:29:29 [Zakim]
- +1.646.654.aahh
17:29:43 [bryan]
WileyS: agree that it should only be responses not subject to caching
17:29:49 [aleecia]
Actually I'm not convinced that there should be caching off the table,
17:29:50 [fielding]
s/expression/expressed preference/
17:29:59 [aleecia]
since fingerprinting etc. are still an issue.
17:30:01 [npdoty]
isn't another task of the protocol to enable transparency for the user?
17:30:10 [bryan]
... Roy had advised a way to meet that objective - we do want the server to respond, but not break caches
17:30:13 [aleecia]
agree with Nick
17:30:19 [chesterj1]
chesterj1 has joined #dnt
17:30:19 [npdoty]
17:30:22 [tl]
this is actually accounted for in the proposal
17:30:27 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
17:30:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.346.aavv
17:31:11 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
17:31:16 [bryan]
tl: proposal did account for caching, including a 5-character header on cacheable objects.
17:31:27 [bryan]
... need to move forward unless there is an alternative
17:31:31 [schunter]
17:31:51 [npdoty]
tom's proposal is here:
17:32:05 [bryan]
roy: agree on the need for an alternative to meet the objective, but have objected to this approach several times
17:32:06 [johnsimpson]
Tom, where is the language? In the email exchange on issue 51 on the trscker?
17:32:11 [npdoty]
ack tl
17:32:12 [npdoty]
ack ksmith
17:32:15 [aleecia]
Also, issue-21 is "enable external audit of DNT" -- this is an implicit issue here too
17:32:20 [tl]
johnsimpson, see
17:32:39 [bryan]
ksmith: wondering what the debate is about... should 1st party return a header, and what should the header look like?
17:32:53 [bryan]
bryan: I agree we should break this into smaller problems
17:32:57 [tl]
the current response header includes 1p responses
17:33:16 [tl]
this issue has been discussed, and a solution proposed
17:33:19 [carmenb]
user transparency is crucial and 1st party response is important part of that, especially w/the reality that users will have different expectations of DNT
17:33:27 [schunter]
- Should 1st parties send responses at all (or be exempted)
17:33:27 [schunter]
- What should a header look like?
17:33:27 [schunter]
- Should the header be sent on all elements or just the non-cacheable subset.
17:33:30 [bryan]
... benefit from addressing just whether there should be a header
17:33:31 [bryan]
17:33:51 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
17:34:08 [bryan]
matthias: good suggestion, narrow 51 re whether 1st party is exempt from sending the header
17:34:23 [aleecia]
One of the few things we clearly agreed to was Yes, first parties must receive a header.
17:34:26 [fielding]
51 is only about 1st party
17:34:32 [Frankie]
Frankie has joined #dnt
17:34:32 [bryan]
... (a) exemption (b) what should the header look like (c) what is effect on caches
17:34:34 [Zakim]
17:34:39 [schunter]
17:34:49 [Zakim]
- +1.516.376.aarr
17:34:50 [aleecia]
If we're echoing what we get, then first parties would also send a response
17:34:55 [bryan]
... impression that we have agreement on the need for a header to be sent
17:35:15 [bryan]
roy: keep in mind that 99% of the web does not use tracking and this impacts them
17:35:20 [Frankie]
Hi there no chance to dial in, conference is full
17:35:22 [aleecia]
17:35:24 [tl]
17:35:28 [chesterj1]
chesterj1 has joined #dnt
17:35:33 [npdoty]
non-compliant servers can continue to ignore the recommendation, right?
17:35:42 [tl]
yes, yes they can
17:35:44 [aleecia]
Nick: exactly my point
17:36:04 [aleecia]
17:36:14 [bryan]
matthias: did not think we wanted all sites to send the header, only if DNT was received and the server is mandated to respond
17:36:20 [tl]
17:36:27 [schunter]
- Response headers should only be sent if you received a request with DNT
17:36:31 [bryan]
... will refresh the issues and make a proposal
17:36:46 [schunter]
- if you do not intend to comply with DNT, no need to send a DNT response header
17:36:50 [schunter]
17:37:20 [tl]
17:37:22 [WileyS]
17:37:25 [dwainberg]
17:37:26 [schunter]
17:37:31 [ksmith]
17:37:33 [bryan]
...ISSUE-87: Should there be an option for the server to respond with "I don't know what my policy is"
17:37:51 [fielding]
17:37:57 [Zakim]
+ +49.175.181.aaww
17:38:04 [bryan]
tl: the answer should be no, there is no option to respond in that way
17:38:17 [johnsimpson]
17:38:19 [schunter]
17:38:20 [bryan]
WileyS: it should be a definitive response
17:38:21 [Frankie]
Thx nick
17:38:23 [npdoty]
ack tl
17:38:25 [schunter]
17:38:25 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
17:38:28 [npdoty]
ack dwainberg
17:38:29 [johnsimpson]
zakim, unmute me
17:38:29 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should no longer be muted
17:38:38 [bryan]
dwainberg: should allow for "don't know" option
17:39:05 [bryan]
... there is a difference between not responding because its not subject to DNT, or subject but not compliant
17:39:17 [tl]
17:39:17 [bryan]
... we should plan for where the server does not know the answer
17:39:21 [Zakim]
17:39:22 [aleecia]
they could not reply
17:39:23 [schunter]
17:39:28 [tl]
tl, WileyS : no, either you give a specific response or you're not compliant
17:39:31 [bryan]
... if they have to respond otherwise they may be wrong
17:39:39 [WileyS]
David - please give an example where a company won't know? Wouldn't it be better to not respond at all if there is a certain perspective?
17:39:42 [bryan]
ksmith: had the same question
17:40:04 [bryan]
... difference between I don't know, blank response, no response
17:40:22 [aleecia]
to me "I don't know" means "please start an enforcement action against my company"
17:40:36 [tl]
aleecia, +1
17:40:37 [WileyS]
17:40:38 [bryan]
dwainberg: if servers not subject send no response, or not compliant sends no response, there is ambiguity
17:40:41 [aleecia]
So if that's what you all really want...
17:40:59 [tl]
17:41:00 [schunter]
17:41:06 [efelten]
Is there a use case where a user agent would behave differently in the two cases (no-response vs. don't-know)?
17:41:07 [johnsimpson]
17:41:09 [schunter]
ackn ksmith
17:41:17 [WileyS]
17:41:18 [johnsimpson]
zakim, mute me
17:41:19 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should now be muted
17:41:20 [bryan]
... giving the server a don't know option makes resolves the ambiguity
17:41:36 [fielding]
to clarify, all servers are "subject to DNT" in the current drafts
17:41:44 [tl]
efelten, not as far as i can see. either case means "i can't promise that i'm in compliance"
17:41:58 [WileyS]
17:42:04 [bryan]
ksmith: think the end result is that dont know will be interpreted as no response, and don't see the value yet
17:42:06 [ksmith]
17:42:38 [schunter]
17:42:43 [WileyS]
17:42:43 [tl]
17:42:50 [tl]
17:42:50 [bryan]
schunter: if we don't have agreement, this may be a "not urgently required" aspect, and may be dropped
17:42:51 [johnsimpson]
+1 no reason to have don't know.
17:43:40 [bryan]
... David, could take an action to explain how a browser would treat both cases differently, and what the value is to the end user
17:44:03 [johnsimpson]
17:44:15 [altaf]
altaf has joined #dnt
17:45:22 [bryan]
WileyS: if the assumption is that there is no response, the party is saying I don't need to be in compliance. but it the company is responsible, it should respond. thus no response should mean DNT is not implemented
17:45:55 [bryan]
@@@: any lack of response should be "not in compliance" for whatever reason
17:45:59 [tl]
act tl
17:46:06 [efelten]
17:46:22 [aleecia]
17:46:26 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:46:26 [fielding]
tl, that's called a formal objection (if it were in the spec), not a block
17:46:28 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:46:28 [tl]
17:46:28 [bryan]
schunter: have enough input, propose to close the issue after David's input
17:46:30 [WileyS]
17:46:40 [bryan]
...ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user?
17:46:49 [tl]
fielding, formal objection is only once it's in a published spec
17:47:06 [bryan]
... is this issue a compliance or expression question?
17:47:15 [schunter]
17:47:22 [fielding]
tl, right that's what the parens are for ;-)
17:47:27 [bryan]
WileyS: already wrote a draft and sent it
17:47:28 [johnsimpson]
17:47:50 [bryan]
tl: comfortable with the draft
17:48:13 [bryan]
schunter: so the list will review the text and respond
17:48:27 [bryan]
...ISSUE-27: How should the "opt back in" mechanism be designed?
17:48:33 [schunter]
17:48:39 [fielding]
17:49:05 [bryan]
WileyS: technically discussed several options on site-specific exception
17:49:35 [bryan]
... the opt-in / site exception list, ...
17:49:57 [bryan]
(having a hard time hearing, drop outs maybe in my connection, please drop notes in the IRC)
17:50:03 [dwainberg]
same here
17:50:07 [dsriedel]
confirm drop outs
17:50:08 [ksmith]
17:50:11 [Lia]
17:50:13 [johnsimpson]
shane you are breaking up...
17:50:52 [bryan]
(hooray for mobile networks)
17:50:54 [schunter]
17:51:29 [tl]
17:51:34 [bryan]
schunter: any other opinions in the interim...
17:51:49 [WileyS]
I can not call in via cell - "the call is full"
17:52:18 [bryan]
ksmith: expressed concern that standards are good, but opt-in will need to be customized to the user experience
17:52:23 [sidstamm]
WileyS, I'll drop off to make a slot for you (need to drop off in 5 min anyway)
17:52:39 [Zakim]
17:52:40 [amyc]
+1 I don't believe we should dictate technological mechanism, could have best practices?
17:52:54 [schunter]
17:52:55 [bryan]
... there will be a need to do things differently so standardization may not support all the ways that interaction may need
17:52:56 [WileyS]
Argh - that's a horrible solution - don't want anyone to leave for me
17:53:11 [aleecia]
17:53:25 [bryan]
17:53:30 [ksmith]
cannot hear shane still
17:53:32 [bryan]
still dropping out
17:53:32 [tedleung]
even worse now.
17:53:42 [aleecia]
Shane, can you type?
17:53:42 [sidstamm]
WileyS, I have a standing conflict anyway, the slot is all yours
17:54:12 [schunter]
17:54:26 [Zakim]
17:54:31 [bryan]
tl: any current language on this?
17:54:32 [ksmith]
What I think Shane said is that we can have a policy definition, without a technical definition. If so, or even if not, I can think I can get behind that
17:54:47 [bryan]
schunter: no
17:55:24 [Zakim]
17:55:27 [bryan]
tl: need proposals first for discussion. there were some discussions in the F2F. but unless proposals are made, we should defer this
17:55:32 [WileyS]
I will write a proposal - extension of our original submission to the W3C
17:55:40 [WileyS]
I'll take the assignment
17:55:43 [Frankie_]
Frankie_ has joined #dnt
17:56:23 [bryan]
schunter: will send a call for proposals, and if there are no clear ideas we will wait for later proposals
17:56:32 [Zakim]
- +1.978.944.aaqq
17:56:57 [hwest]
17:56:57 [kimon]
I'm not ok
17:57:03 [bryan]
... if no significant proposals this may slip to a later release
17:57:07 [hwest]
I don't like that approach
17:57:07 [schunter]
17:57:21 [WileyS]
17:57:24 [hwest]
I think it's a big problem not to have an opt back in in order to get sites to implement
17:57:29 [efelten]
17:57:34 [tl]
hwest, can you write a proposal?
17:57:35 [tl]
17:57:53 [hwest]
I can write up a short and non technical proposal
17:57:57 [bryan]
kimon: websites need to know what the current status is, whether they can leverage user data or not (please correct if needed)
17:58:15 [hwest]
17:58:29 [bryan]
... can discuss with publishers on proposals
17:59:04 [Zakim]
17:59:25 [johnsimpson]
17:59:31 [bryan]
schunter: what mechanisms to use e.g. out of band, what objective is being sought, e.g. informal description is ok - it does not need to be technical
17:59:48 [efelten]
17:59:51 [hwest]
17:59:54 [bryan]
hwest: will help with that
18:00:13 [schunter]
18:00:33 [bryan]
schunter: any more on issue 27?
18:00:55 [bryan]
.... next item is for Roy to make proposals
18:01:21 [bryan]
fielding: no progress yet, plan is for progress in the next two weeks
18:01:40 [Zakim]
18:01:46 [bryan]
schunter: that's all for today, next call next week will be chaired by aleecia
18:01:55 [bryan]
... focusing on compliance doc
18:01:57 [Zakim]
18:02:03 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
18:02:37 [Zakim]
18:02:43 [Zakim]
- +1.202.744.aapp
18:02:44 [Zakim]
- +385221aaoo
18:02:45 [ksmith]
ksmith has left #DNT
18:02:46 [Zakim]
18:02:53 [Zakim]
18:02:57 [Zakim]
- +1.347.689.aauu
18:03:00 [bryan]
bryan has left #dnt
18:03:02 [Zakim]
- +1.646.825.aaaa
18:03:03 [Zakim]
18:03:07 [Zakim]
- +1.813.366.aabb
18:03:09 [Zakim]
18:03:11 [Zakim]
- +1.206.619.aatt
18:03:13 [Frank_]
Frank_ has left #DNT
18:03:19 [Zakim]
18:03:21 [Zakim]
18:03:23 [Zakim]
18:03:26 [Zakim]
18:03:27 [Zakim]
- +1.609.627.aamm
18:03:29 [Zakim]
18:03:30 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
18:03:31 [Zakim]
- +3249434aajj
18:03:33 [Zakim]
- +1.301.270.aaff
18:03:35 [Zakim]
18:03:37 [Zakim]
18:03:39 [Zakim]
18:03:41 [Zakim]
- +1.508.655.aass
18:03:43 [Zakim]
18:03:45 [Zakim]
18:03:46 [tedleung]
tedleung has left #dnt
18:03:49 [Zakim]
18:03:51 [Zakim]
18:03:53 [Zakim]
18:03:55 [Zakim]
18:03:59 [Zakim]
18:04:02 [Zakim]
- +49.175.181.aaww
18:04:03 [Zakim]
- +1.650.862.aaii
18:04:15 [adrianba]
adrianba has left #dnt
18:10:11 [Zakim]
18:12:26 [Zakim]
18:21:50 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
18:23:56 [Zakim]
18:25:49 [tl]
trackbot, end meeting
18:25:49 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:25:49 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aleecia, +1.646.825.aaaa, +1.813.366.aabb, WileyS, +1.202.835.aacc, efelten, +1.949.483.aadd, npdoty, +1.202.326.aaee, fielding,
18:25:50 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:25:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:25:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:25:51 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
18:25:53 [Zakim]
... +1.301.270.aaff, +1.425.269.aagg, +1.646.654.aahh, +1.650.862.aaii, Justin, +3249434aajj, FrankG_BlueCava, +1.415.734.aakk, SueG, +1.425.214.aall, PederMagee, +1.609.627.aamm,