IRC log of dnt on 2012-02-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:11:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:11:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-irc
16:11:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
16:12:02 [aleecia_]
Zakim, this will be dnt
16:12:02 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, aleecia_
16:12:47 [tlr]
zakim, this will be track
16:12:47 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, tlr
16:13:50 [tlr]
zakim, list conferences
16:13:50 [Zakim]
I see SW_HCLS(LODD)11:00AM, I18N_CoreWG()11:00AM, SW_RDFWG()11:00AM, IA_XForms()11:00AM active and no others scheduled to start in the next 15 minutes
16:14:03 [tlr]
zakim, this will be T&S_Track(dnt)
16:14:03 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, tlr
16:51:07 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
16:51:11 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
16:52:39 [aleecia_]
Zakim, this is dnt
16:52:39 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia_; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
16:52:55 [aleecia_]
chair: aleecia & schunter
16:53:17 [aleecia_]
regrets+ Rob, JC, Amy
16:53:27 [aleecia_]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:54:28 [aleecia_]
agenda+ Selection of scribe
16:55:01 [aleecia_]
agenda+ Any comments on minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-dnt-minutes
16:55:34 [aleecia_]
agenda+ Review of overdue action items: https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue
16:56:02 [aleecia_]
agenda+ Compliance discussion [About 40 minutes]
16:56:14 [aleecia_]
agenda+ TPE discussion [About 40 minutes]
16:56:24 [aleecia_]
agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
16:56:27 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:57:17 [Zakim]
+ninjamarnau
16:57:30 [Zakim]
+PederMagee
16:57:39 [aleecia_]
Who is fanboynz? :-)
16:58:09 [pedermagee]
pedermagee has joined #dnt
16:58:48 [Zakim]
+efelten
16:59:07 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:59:11 [Zakim]
+npdoty
16:59:11 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:59:30 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:59:46 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:59:51 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:59:55 [aleecia_]
Zakim, agenda?
16:59:56 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:59:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, tl, ninjamarnau, PederMagee, efelten, npdoty
17:00:15 [Zakim]
+fielding
17:00:18 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
17:00:21 [Zakim]
1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia_]
17:00:22 [Zakim]
2. Any comments on minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-dnt-minutes [from aleecia_]
17:00:24 [Zakim]
3. Review of overdue action items: https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue [from aleecia_]
17:00:27 [Zakim]
4. Compliance discussion [from About 40 minutes via aleecia_]
17:00:29 [Zakim]
5. TPE discussion [from About 40 minutes via aleecia_]
17:00:31 [Zakim]
6. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia_]
17:00:37 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
17:00:40 [Zakim]
+cOlsen
17:01:14 [aleecia_]
Shouldn't be hard to pick a scribe… 12.5% chance :-)
17:01:15 [schunter]
http://www.lotuslive.com/join?schedid=7248329
17:01:21 [Zakim]
+johnsimpson
17:01:27 [dsriedel]
dsriedel has joined #dnt
17:01:29 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
17:01:36 [johnsimpson]
zakim, who is on phone
17:01:36 [Zakim]
+kevint
17:01:36 [npdoty]
schunter, what's that link for?
17:01:39 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
17:01:39 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
17:01:44 [Zakim]
+ +5aaaa
17:01:51 [aleecia_]
going to start in 1 minute
17:01:53 [schunter]
We may later use it for shared browsing in the spec.
17:01:57 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
17:02:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.349.aabb
17:02:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.637.aacc
17:02:05 [schunter]
If you like, you can try it. If you like it, we can use it.
17:02:06 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on phone', johnsimpson
17:02:09 [Zakim]
+[IBM_Watson]
17:02:12 [Zakim]
+jchester2
17:02:15 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #dnt
17:02:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.684.aadd
17:02:18 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
17:02:19 [wseltzer]
wseltzer has joined #dnt
17:02:36 [Zakim]
+dsriedel
17:02:40 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
17:02:40 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
17:02:57 [Zakim]
+dsinger
17:03:20 [npdoty]
wseltzer, are you available to scribe?
17:03:23 [tl]
zakim, who is on the call?
17:03:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, tl, ninjamarnau, PederMagee, efelten, npdoty, fielding, cOlsen, johnsimpson, kevint, +5aaaa, +1.408.349.aabb, +1.202.637.aacc, [IBM_Watson], jchester2
17:03:26 [Zakim]
... (muted), +1.202.684.aadd, dsriedel (muted), dsinger
17:03:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.619.aaee
17:03:43 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
17:03:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.733.aaff
17:03:48 [andyzei]
andyzei has joined #dnt
17:03:56 [enewland]
enewland has joined #dnt
17:04:01 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
17:04:05 [wseltzer]
npdoty: I'm on a train, but can call in as backup scribe
17:04:14 [WileyS]
Zakim, aabb is WileyS
17:04:14 [Zakim]
+WileyS; got it
17:04:18 [Zakim]
+Rigo
17:04:20 [npdoty]
scribenick: johnsimpson
17:04:28 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
17:04:31 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
17:04:31 [Zakim]
Rigo should now be muted
17:04:32 [justin]
zakim, aacc is justin
17:04:33 [Zakim]
+justin; got it
17:04:34 [npdoty]
(justin has volunteered to scribe for the other doc)
17:04:35 [BrianTs]
BrianTs has joined #DNT
17:04:42 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 2
17:04:42 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Any comments on minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-dnt-minutes" taken up [from aleecia_]
17:04:42 [aleecia_]
http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-dnt-minutes
17:04:43 [johnsimpson]
john simpson scribing for compliance
17:04:50 [tl]
Do we have a super-smart Jeopardy-robot on the call?
17:04:53 [johnsimpson]
minutes are approved
17:04:54 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 3
17:04:54 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Review of overdue action items: https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue" taken up [from aleecia_]
17:04:57 [andyzei]
what conferences?
17:05:12 [Zakim]
+alex
17:05:13 [rigo]
yes
17:05:21 [andyzei]
zakim, what conferences?
17:05:21 [Zakim]
I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM, I18N_CoreWG()11:00AM, T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM, WAI_PF()12:00PM, SW_RDFWG()11:00AM active and no others scheduled to start in the next 15 minutes
17:05:23 [ac]
ac has joined #dnt
17:05:23 [rigo]
sent to mailing list
17:05:24 [Zakim]
+justin.a
17:05:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.744.aagg
17:05:44 [johnsimpson]
rigo has completed compliance proposals
17:05:47 [npdoty]
action-47?
17:05:47 [trackbot]
ACTION-47 -- Jonathan Mayer to write discussion on best practices for 3.6.1.2.1 -- due 2012-02-09 -- OPEN
17:05:47 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/47
17:06:03 [andyzei]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:06:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, tl, ninjamarnau, PederMagee, efelten, npdoty, fielding, cOlsen, johnsimpson, kevint, +5aaaa, WileyS, justin, [IBM_Watson], jchester2 (muted),
17:06:06 [Zakim]
... +1.202.684.aadd, dsriedel (muted), dsinger, +1.206.619.aaee, +1.617.733.aaff, Rigo (muted), alex, justin.a, +1.202.744.aagg
17:06:09 [johnsimpson]
Jonathan hasn't made progress on best practices
17:06:13 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
17:06:35 [BrianTs]
Zakim, [Microsoft] has BrianTs
17:06:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.212.565.aahh
17:06:36 [Zakim]
+BrianTs; got it
17:06:38 [johnsimpson]
is question of what good practices for passively vs, actively collected info.
17:06:45 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
zakim, aagg is ChrisPedigoOPA
17:06:45 [Zakim]
+ChrisPedigoOPA; got it
17:06:46 [sean]
sean has joined #dnt
17:06:52 [npdoty]
s/is question/jmayer: is question/
17:07:02 [johnsimpson]
aleecia says still valuablbe but not get iunto next poublication
17:07:05 [andyzei]
zakim, aaee is andyzei
17:07:05 [Zakim]
+andyzei; got it
17:07:12 [npdoty]
action-47 due 3/10
17:07:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-47 Write discussion on best practices for 3.6.1.2.1 due date now 3/10
17:07:16 [Zakim]
+wseltzer
17:07:20 [andyzei]
zakim, [Microsoft] has andyzei
17:07:21 [Zakim]
+andyzei; got it
17:07:23 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:07:24 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
17:07:33 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (32%)
17:07:54 [npdoty]
action-68?
17:07:54 [trackbot]
ACTION-68 -- Justin Brookman to provide text on ISSUE-54 -- due 2012-02-01 -- OPEN
17:07:54 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/68
17:07:54 [Zakim]
+ +385221aaii
17:07:58 [npdoty]
issue-54?
17:07:58 [trackbot]
ISSUE-54 -- Can first party provide targeting based on registration information even while sending DNT -- open
17:07:58 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/54
17:08:00 [johnsimpson]
issue 68?
17:08:01 [aleecia_]
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue
17:08:04 [Zakim]
+Chapell
17:08:12 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
17:08:21 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #dnt
17:08:54 [johnsimpson]
changed to pending review
17:09:12 [WileyS]
Registration information would be considered "out of band consent"
17:09:29 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
17:09:43 [johnsimpson]
Tom takes action item to work on it
17:09:45 [npdoty]
I didn't interpret Justin's proposal as out-of-band consent for tracking
17:09:57 [Zakim]
+??P84
17:10:00 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
17:10:28 [npdoty]
action: lowenthal to draft alternate proposal on first-party targeting based on registration information
17:10:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-137 - Draft alternate proposal on first-party targeting based on registration information [on Thomas Lowenthal - due 2012-03-07].
17:10:33 [npdoty]
action-137 due 3/10
17:10:33 [trackbot]
ACTION-137 Draft alternate proposal on first-party targeting based on registration information due date now 3/10
17:10:34 [johnsimpson]
action 101
17:10:34 [trackbot]
Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
17:10:44 [npdoty]
action-101?
17:10:44 [trackbot]
ACTION-101 -- John Simpson to revise Issue-6 based on feedback on the mailing list -- due 2012-02-22 -- OPEN
17:10:44 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/101
17:10:46 [WileyS]
Tom and Justin, could you please loop me into the registration data conversation (obviously a big issue for Yahoo!)
17:10:48 [WileyS]
?
17:11:10 [npdoty]
johnsimpson: yes, sent out some text on this
17:11:14 [justin]
Correct npdoty --- first-party data is to me outside the scope of DNT, so I'm OK with parties using it in a third-party context
17:11:35 [fielding]
q+
17:11:39 [npdoty]
... but Dave Singer suggested cutting down the goals/introductions for both documents
17:12:13 [npdoty]
... not put my text in the Compliance doc and cut down the TPE introduction
17:12:19 [kj_]
kj_ has joined #dnt
17:12:22 [Zakim]
+aadd.a
17:12:25 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute johnsimpson
17:12:25 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should now be muted
17:12:33 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:12:45 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: tl (5%)
17:12:53 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute tl
17:12:53 [Zakim]
tl should now be muted
17:12:54 [sean]
+q
17:12:56 [WileyS]
I'm open to it - I'll write the privacy interests paragraph
17:13:02 [jmayer]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:13:09 [johnsimpson]
someone needs mute
17:13:13 [Zakim]
jmayer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (90%)
17:13:15 [johnsimpson]
can't hear
17:13:24 [jmayer]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:13:30 [aleecia_]
ack fielding
17:13:35 [Zakim]
jmayer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: fielding (38%)
17:13:36 [johnsimpson]
cannot hear!!!
17:13:55 [aleecia_]
Roy is saying he wants something in
17:14:08 [Zakim]
-tl
17:14:22 [alex]
zakim, mute me
17:14:22 [Zakim]
alex should now be muted
17:14:23 [jmayer]
Zakim, mute me
17:14:24 [Zakim]
sorry, jmayer, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:14:28 [aleecia_]
q?
17:14:29 [johnsimpson]
Roy says he is opposed to removing the why we are doing this
17:14:31 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
zakim, mute me
17:14:31 [Zakim]
ChrisPedigoOPA should now be muted
17:14:32 [Zakim]
+tl
17:14:35 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
17:14:35 [Zakim]
Rigo was already muted, rigo
17:14:36 [ninjamarnau]
Zakim, mute me
17:14:36 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
17:14:36 [Zakim]
ninjamarnau should now be muted
17:14:36 [aleecia_]
ack sean
17:14:38 [johnsimpson]
zakim, mute me
17:14:38 [Zakim]
johnsimpson was already muted, johnsimpson
17:15:00 [Zakim]
-dsinger
17:15:01 [Zakim]
+[Apple]
17:15:05 [WileyS]
Agree we should have "something" there - but smaller text that attempts to avoid controversial elements in that description
17:15:09 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
17:15:09 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
17:15:14 [johnsimpson]
one paragraph from shane
17:15:15 [WileyS]
Roy, Fair?
17:15:25 [johnsimpson]
one from john
17:15:39 [npdoty]
ack johnsimpson
17:15:42 [fielding]
I said that I want to keep the introduction because people who are not in this WG haven't the faintest clue what we are doing and why, as is abundantly clear from the latest PR flash. I am happy to edit it to reflect the group's goals.
17:16:12 [WileyS]
Roy, great - then I believe we're all on the same page - simply editting/cutting down the current text.
17:16:19 [rigo]
Shane, the intention of my democracy para was just of explanatory nature. I have no issue whatsoever if this is going into an explanatory notice
17:16:33 [aleecia_]
thanks for offering Roy, but it looks like we have this covered
17:16:33 [jmayer]
roy, we don't need agreement on "the group's goals," we need agreement on a standard
17:16:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.934.aajj
17:16:57 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:17:12 [fielding]
we need agreement on what "do not track" means in the TPE spec.
17:17:23 [johnsimpson]
do it for the com pliance document
17:17:41 [rigo]
Roy, it is already unclear what meaning means here
17:17:54 [rigo]
so I'm not really enthusiastic about your requirement
17:18:02 [npdoty]
aleecia: start with the compliance doc, and if it works, we can use something similar in the TPE doc
17:18:09 [aleecia_]
q?
17:18:38 [rigo]
we could try a "meaning" definition on a explanatory note without normative value
17:18:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aakk
17:18:47 [johnsimpson]
action 104 won't make it
17:18:47 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 104
17:18:50 [npdoty]
action-109?
17:18:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-109 -- Adrian Bateman to draft text for issue-54: Can first party provide targeting based on registration information even while sending DNT -- due 2012-02-13 -- OPEN
17:18:50 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/109
17:19:00 [npdoty]
andyzei, info on adrian?
17:19:02 [johnsimpson]
action-109
17:19:03 [tl]
+q
17:19:31 [tl]
ack tl
17:20:19 [npdoty]
action-120?
17:20:19 [trackbot]
ACTION-120 -- Shane Wiley to write a proposal on web-wide exception API (for ISSUE-113) (with npdoty) -- due 2012-02-15 -- OPEN
17:20:19 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/120
17:20:21 [johnsimpson]
action-120
17:20:35 [laurengelman]
laurengelman has joined #dnt
17:20:36 [tl]
+q
17:20:54 [tl]
-q
17:21:10 [alex]
I am interested
17:21:27 [Zakim]
+??P36
17:21:58 [WileyS]
Thank you Alex!
17:22:04 [johnsimpson]
probably won't make it into drat
17:22:20 [efelten]
s/drat/draft
17:22:21 [npdoty]
alex, can I re-assign this action to you?
17:22:28 [WileyS]
You did this!
17:22:36 [WileyS]
Aleecia - you already wrote the text. :-)
17:22:39 [johnsimpson]
Actio-121: assigned now to Aleecia
17:22:41 [alex]
Please do
17:22:43 [WileyS]
Thank you!
17:22:56 [tl]
action-121?
17:22:56 [trackbot]
ACTION-121 -- Shane Wiley to re-write language on issue-57 proposal to avoid "opt out" language -- due 2012-02-15 -- OPEN
17:22:56 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/121
17:23:39 [andyzei]
npdoty, i'll try to track him down
17:24:05 [andyzei]
npdoty, he may be DNT:1 right now
17:24:09 [johnsimpson]
Actio9n-126-- Clean up TPE on site-specific sections. not sure what to be cleaned up. Close..
17:24:12 [npdoty]
fielding, it was your suggestion to clean it up / re-write
17:24:28 [fielding]
it just needs editorial work in terms of writing
17:24:38 [dsinger]
yes, we'll keep cleaning up...
17:24:48 [vm]
vm has joined #dnt
17:24:50 [johnsimpson]
assume that David and Roy will do necessary
17:24:53 [fielding]
and I think npdoty was going to add more to the javascript?
17:25:13 [tl]
+q
17:25:24 [npdoty]
with Tom and Andy I think we'll send out updates to the JS API proposal later today
17:25:43 [johnsimpson]
Turning to discuss compliance document
17:25:56 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 4
17:25:56 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Compliance discussion" taken up [from About 40 minutes via aleecia_]
17:26:06 [aleecia_]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html
17:26:28 [johnsimpson]
Does not necessarily have text from every issue yet
17:26:59 [npdoty]
aleecia: if you've written text and it isn't in here, please help by sending a note to us / the list
17:27:35 [johnsimpson]
aleecia if there is text that should be there let us know.
17:27:36 [Zakim]
- +1.202.684.aadd
17:28:09 [johnsimpson]
... will have doodle poll n who has contributed text. list name as you want it for credit
17:28:15 [aleecia_]
1. Introduction
17:28:15 [aleecia_]
This specification defines the meaning of a Do Not Track preference and sets out practices for websites and other online companies to comply with this preference.
17:28:43 [johnsimpson]
objections to intro?
17:28:50 [WileyS]
Agreed
17:28:59 [johnsimpson]
holding off on 2.1 for this week
17:29:00 [fielding]
This would be objections to WD publication, right? Not a consensus call on the text?
17:29:44 [fielding]
thanks
17:30:02 [johnsimpson]
aleecia can we live here with these options
17:30:08 [Vinay]
Vinay has joined #dnt
17:31:10 [johnsimpson]
3.2 are fair representation of options
17:31:28 [Zakim]
+Nokia
17:31:39 [aleecia_]
3.3.1 Definitions
17:31:39 [aleecia_]
A "first party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that can infer with high probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with it. Otherwise, a party is a third party.
17:31:39 [aleecia_]
A "third party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that cannot infer with high probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with it.
17:31:53 [WileyS]
Incorrect status - there is an alternate definition that Amy and I put together
17:31:57 [WileyS]
+q
17:32:12 [aleecia_]
ack tl
17:32:13 [fielding]
no objection to publish, but 3.3.1 cannot be implemented
17:32:15 [tl]
-q
17:32:31 [aleecia_]
ack WileyS
17:32:56 [aleecia_]
3.3.1 -- draft text from Amy on dlist
17:33:38 [johnsimpson]
shane says 3.3.1 is still under duscussion
17:33:57 [rigo]
why don't we mark that in the Specification?
17:33:58 [aleecia_]
Roy ok to publish as-is, but thinks it cannot be implemented
17:34:04 [johnsimpson]
roy says he doesn't think it can be implemented
17:34:44 [tl]
+q
17:34:48 [johnsimpson]
looks like we don't have consensus
17:34:48 [aleecia_]
3.3.2.1 Overview
17:35:00 [npdoty]
WileyS, is this the alternate definition for 3.3.1? http://www.w3.org/mid/81152EDFE766CB4692EA39AECD2AA5B60F5D330E@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
17:35:00 [aleecia_]
ack tl
17:35:11 [johnsimpson]
tom asks if there are any other options
17:35:56 [npdoty]
s/tom asks/tom: asks/
17:36:01 [ninjamarnau]
maybe we could mark it as an option?
17:36:01 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
17:36:06 [aleecia_]
3.3.2.2 Common Examples and Use Cases
17:36:07 [johnsimpson]
is an option and needs a box
17:36:29 [aleecia_]
3.3.2.3 Multiple First Parties
17:36:30 [aleecia_]
There will almost always be only one party that the average user would expect to communicate with: the provider of the website the user has visited. But, in rare cases, users may expect that a website is provided by more than one party. For example, suppose Example Sports, a well known sports league, collaborates with Example Streaming, a well known streaming video website, to provide content at www.examplesportsonexamplestreaming.com. The website is prominent
17:36:30 [aleecia_]
advertised and branded as being provided by both Example Sports and Example Streaming. An ordinary user who visits the website may recognize that it is operated by both Example Sports and Example Streaming.
17:36:54 [aleecia_]
Note: non-controv but still open?
17:36:55 [fielding]
which section?
17:37:09 [WileyS]
Depends on the ultimate defintion of 1st party
17:37:33 [justin]
+q
17:37:40 [aleecia_]
ack justin
17:37:41 [johnsimpson]
aleecia has heard no objections to multiple first parties
17:37:52 [WileyS]
Co-branded Web Site
17:37:57 [tl]
+Q
17:38:07 [aleecia_]
not branding related
17:38:12 [Zakim]
-wseltzer
17:38:14 [WileyS]
This site brought to you by Company X and Company Y - with links to both party's privacy policies and TOS
17:38:25 [WileyS]
+q
17:38:39 [johnsimpson]
need to have interacted with the site before it can be first party
17:38:51 [aleecia_]
ack tl
17:38:59 [johnsimpson]
aleecia can't close but low controversy
17:39:14 [aleecia_]
3.3.2.4.1 Examples and Use Cases
17:39:47 [johnsimpson]
operator of domain makes sens as 1st party
17:40:01 [fielding]
yep, close
17:40:04 [johnsimpson]
general direction seems noncontrovesial, working on details
17:40:06 [aleecia_]
General direction seems fairly non-contra but details oaround edges still to agree
17:40:14 [aleecia_]
ack WileyS
17:40:29 [aleecia_]
co-branded websites, microsite: example to add
17:40:39 [dsriedel]
We call this "Advertorial"
17:40:44 [justin]
+justin
17:40:45 [aleecia_]
Justin, could you type in which example you're disagreeing on?
17:40:46 [johnsimpson]
shane: point out other valid use case, co-branded websites, microsite often in a contest
17:40:46 [alex]
q+
17:40:50 [justin]
Q=
17:40:51 [justin]
q=
17:40:55 [justin]
q=
17:40:58 [justin]
q+
17:41:12 [johnsimpson]
often carry links to both parties privacy policy and TOS
17:41:18 [WileyS]
Will do
17:41:21 [aleecia_]
q?
17:41:26 [aleecia_]
ack alex
17:41:43 [aleecia_]
ack justin
17:41:47 [johnsimpson]
alex: joint ventures may need to be considered
17:41:59 [WileyS]
Not easy
17:42:32 [justin]
This is a different take on branding.
17:42:36 [Zakim]
-tl
17:42:38 [johnsimpson]
justin seems like trying to cater to nonexistence use case..
17:42:58 [npdoty]
s/justin seems/justin: seems/
17:43:03 [Zakim]
+tl
17:43:07 [aleecia_]
q?
17:43:14 [aleecia_]
3.4 Network Interaction
17:43:27 [Zakim]
-tl
17:43:32 [aleecia_]
3.4.1 Definition
17:43:33 [aleecia_]
A "network interaction" is an HTTP request and response, or any other set of logically related network traffic.
17:43:38 [fielding]
q+
17:43:43 [aleecia_]
3.4.2 Non-Normative Discussion
17:43:43 [aleecia_]
Determination of a party's status is limited to a single interaction because a party's status may be affected by time, context, or any other factor that influences user expectations.
17:43:49 [npdoty]
ack fielding
17:43:51 [laurengelman]
but these are all related. how broadly you decide pepsi or doritos might affect how people feel about this.
17:44:07 [Zakim]
+tl
17:44:18 [aleecia_]
note: concern with sequence of actions to load a page.
17:44:22 [WileyS]
Aleecia, sent multi-first party example to your email
17:44:32 [tl]
What did Roy just say?
17:44:40 [johnsimpson]
roy: concerned that should be a "sequence"
17:44:54 [Zakim]
- +1.917.934.aajj
17:44:59 [johnsimpson]
aleecia: might need to reopen
17:45:04 [fielding]
The problem is that each interaction has a separate first-party unless you discuss all the interactions as a group.
17:45:05 [aleecia_]
q?
17:45:16 [aleecia_]
3.5 Transactional data
17:45:16 [aleecia_]
Transactional data is information about the user's interactions with various websites, services, or widgets which could be used to create a record of a user’s system information, online communications, transactions and other activities, including websites visited, pages and ads viewed, purchases made, etc.
17:45:22 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
17:45:49 [johnsimpson]
no concerns raisd
17:45:55 [aleecia_]
3.6 Data collection, retention, use, and sharing
17:46:05 [aleecia_]
A party "collects" data if the data comes within its control.
17:46:05 [aleecia_]
A party "retains" data if data remains within a party's control.
17:46:06 [aleecia_]
A party "uses" data if the party processes the data for any purpose other than storage.
17:46:06 [aleecia_]
A party "shares" data if the party enables another party to collect the data.
17:46:06 [aleecia_]
The definitions of collection, retention, use, and sharing are drafted expansively so as to comprehensively cover a party's user-information practices. These definitions do not require a party's intent; a party may inadvertently collect, retain, use, or share data. The definition of collection includes information that a party did not cause to be transmitted, such as protocol headers.
17:47:07 [npdoty]
I think we've been using these definitions pretty successfully in discussion
17:47:08 [aleecia_]
3.7 Tracking
17:47:08 [johnsimpson]
hearing nothing
17:47:09 [aleecia_]
Tracking is the collection or use of user data via either a unique identifier or a correlated set of data points being used to approximate a unique identifier, in a context other than "first party" as defined in this document. This includes:
17:47:09 [aleecia_]
a party collecting data across multiple websites, even if it is a first party in one or more (but not all) of the multiple contexts
17:47:09 [aleecia_]
a third party collecting data on a given website
17:47:10 [aleecia_]
a first party sharing user data collected from a DNT-on user with third parties "after the fact".
17:47:12 [aleecia_]
Examples of tracking use cases include:
17:47:14 [aleecia_]
personalized advertising
17:47:16 [Zakim]
- +385221aaii
17:47:16 [aleecia_]
cross-site analytics or market research that has not been de-identified
17:47:18 [aleecia_]
automatic preference sharing by social applications
17:47:22 [johnsimpson]
is anyone speaking?
17:47:23 [dsinger]
3.7 uses the undefined term "user data" which is a problem
17:47:40 [justin]
Or whether we need a definition of tracking or x-site tracking AT ALL
17:47:42 [aleecia_]
notes: user data not defined, tracking or cross-site tracking?
17:47:44 [johnsimpson]
Has the call ended??????? Hearing nothing
17:47:49 [schunter]
no
17:47:50 [aleecia_]
or need at all?
17:47:51 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
17:47:52 [fielding]
FWIW, I am fine not using cross-site tracking if we have a decent definition of tracking
17:48:06 [johnsimpson]
dammit, my line is dead
17:48:32 [aleecia_]
3.8 Consent
17:48:33 [aleecia_]
The term “affirmative, informed consent” is used throughout this document. While this terminology may ultimately be modified, some options for explaining the underlying idea are presented below:
17:48:33 [aleecia_]
Option:
17:48:33 [aleecia_]
"Affirmative, Informed Consent to be Tracked" means consent given by an affirmative action such as clicking a consent box in response to a clear and prominent request to ignore a "Do Not Track" setting that is distinct and separate from any other notifications or requested permissions.
17:48:37 [aleecia_]
"Affirmative, Informed Consent to be Tracked" has been obtained when a mechanism to provide for or facilitate the acquisition and storage of permission to ignore the header has been made available to the user and the user has meaningfully interacted with the mechanism in a way that makes clear her intent to grant this permission.
17:48:39 [npdoty]
aleecia: anything else needed for 3.7? (nothing raised)
17:48:40 [aleecia_]
No definition, leaving the definition of consent to local rules.
17:49:09 [aleecia_]
box in blue for options
17:49:21 [npdoty]
aleecia: need to box these for options, but are there other options beyond these three?
17:49:30 [aleecia_]
3.9 Meaningful Interaction
17:49:31 [aleecia_]
"Meaningful Interaction" with a widget or window initially presented on a third-party basis means affirmatively clicking on such content (except to stop, close, silence, or otherwise impair the rendering of such content) or otherwise engaging with the content in a manner that would reasonably be interpreted to express an intention to interact with that party. A user merely moving her cursor across the widget or window does not constitute "meaningful interactio
17:49:33 [johnsimpson]
I cannot get back into call!!
17:49:40 [fielding]
hoping that 3.8 is consistent with EU policies
17:50:00 [fielding]
just a hope, please
17:50:02 [aleecia_]
note on 3.8 that EU matters
17:50:09 [ninjamarnau]
not 100 %
17:50:22 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
17:51:02 [npdoty]
I think the first option would address issue-69
17:51:08 [aleecia_]
issue-69 Should the spec say anything about minimal notice? (ie. don't bury in a privacy policy)
17:51:51 [npdoty]
"informed consent" often brings those two points (notice and consent) together
17:51:53 [justin]
Option 1 says "yes" to 69, Option 3 says "no"
17:52:21 [Zakim]
+johnsimpson.a
17:52:40 [npdoty]
aleecia: anything in particular on 3.9? "meaningful interaction"
17:52:54 [aleecia_]
note as low contra and not closed
17:52:57 [npdoty]
... propose as low-controversy
17:53:09 [npdoty]
"affirmatively clicking" vs "clicking"
17:53:14 [tl]
No.
17:53:22 [fielding]
what does it mean?
17:53:41 [fielding]
intentional?
17:53:53 [npdoty]
tl: an affirmative interaction, rather than a dismissal or removal
17:53:54 [WileyS]
Vote for just "clicking"
17:53:55 [fielding]
and "clicking" is UI specific
17:53:58 [rigo]
we need a user generated trigger-event
17:54:05 [johnsimpson]
Tom: keep affirmatively, not a dismissive interaction, like it in there somewhere
17:54:10 [justin]
I drafted it, I'm fine taking out affirmative.
17:54:11 [rigo]
s/generated/originated/
17:54:13 [justin]
ly
17:54:18 [dsinger]
'clicking' is an issue. Voice input gets a free pass?
17:54:21 [fielding]
but no objection to publish
17:54:24 [rigo]
as opposed to script triggered actions
17:54:33 [npdoty]
scribenick: johnsimpson
17:54:59 [aleecia_]
affirmatively interacting with content?
17:55:01 [rigo]
user input is good!
17:55:01 [justin]
You could move "affirmatively" to right in front of "engaging" if you like
17:55:07 [fielding]
I suggest we just note this as "in progress" for now
17:55:12 [justin]
That would I think solve everyone's problems.
17:55:25 [aleecia_]
note: wording not firm, but direction is non-contro
17:55:34 [npdoty]
dsinger: could look at HTML and their definitions of what counts as "user input"
17:55:36 [johnsimpson]
aleecia, note wording is not final, direction is good
17:55:45 [rigo]
dsinger: why don't we go looking into the HTML5 Specification looking what they say about "user interaction"
17:55:47 [npdoty]
s/aleecia, note/aleecia: note/
17:55:49 [ksmith]
ksmith has left #DNT
17:55:55 [aleecia_]
3.10 User
17:55:55 [aleecia_]
A user is an individual human. When user-agent software accesses online resources, whether or not the user understands or has specific knowledge of a particular request, that request is made "by" the user.
17:55:56 [johnsimpson]
aleecia: looking quickly at othjer specs would be good
17:56:05 [Zakim]
+cOlsen.a
17:56:05 [npdoty]
dsinger, are you volunteering for that action?
17:56:23 [dsinger]
dang. I should keep my mouth shut. yes.
17:56:27 [aleecia_]
3.11 User Agent
17:56:27 [aleecia_]
This specification uses the term user agent to refer to any of the various client programs capable of initiating HTTP requests, including but not limited to browsers, spiders (web-based robots), command-line tools, native applications, and mobile apps [HTTP11].
17:56:47 [aleecia_]
3.10, 3.11 closed and happy
17:56:54 [npdoty]
action: singer to investigate definitions of user action/input in HTML5 or similar specs
17:56:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-138 - Investigate definitions of user action/input in HTML5 or similar specs [on David Singer - due 2012-03-07].
17:56:55 [Zakim]
-cOlsen
17:56:56 [Zakim]
-PederMagee
17:57:16 [npdoty]
scribenick: justin
17:57:21 [johnsimpson]
not that i did that much..
17:57:23 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 5
17:57:23 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "TPE discussion" taken up [from About 40 minutes via aleecia_]
17:57:27 [tl]
Action: lowenthal to Improve wording of 3.9 "Meaningful Interaction" to avoid "affirmatively clicking" and make sure that "clicking" is replaced with something more general.
17:57:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-139 - Improve wording of 3.9 "Meaningful Interaction" to avoid "affirmatively clicking" and make sure that "clicking" is replaced with something more general. [on Thomas Lowenthal - due 2012-03-07].
17:57:43 [npdoty]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
17:57:55 [justin]
matthias: we're going through the TPE spec to make sure everyone's cool with its going out as SPWD
17:58:21 [johnsimpson]
lost call again
17:58:36 [Zakim]
-kevint
17:58:43 [Zakim]
+PederMagee
17:58:47 [johnsimpson]
i think somebody's working on put damn phone lines
17:59:14 [justin]
dsinger: outlining recent changes
17:59:31 [Zakim]
-??P84
17:59:37 [Zakim]
- +5aaaa
17:59:45 [npdoty]
overview of the changes is in email here http://www.w3.org/mid/4F4E36EA.7020909@zurich.ibm.com
17:59:56 [jchester2]
Can we discuss how the Community Group's input will be addressed as this is published?
17:59:57 [fielding]
looks much nicer
18:00:23 [johnsimpson]
Sorry lost call again
18:00:47 [Zakim]
- +1.617.733.aaff
18:00:47 [justin]
matthias: happy the draft is stabilizing, less questions, big question is whether we have response header, well-known URI, or both
18:01:03 [npdoty]
q+ to ask about "cross-site"
18:01:23 [dsinger]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
18:01:25 [tl]
+q
18:01:30 [justin]
matthias: if we don't get much input, we're putting this out on Thursday, and we'll keep discussing response header and/or URI issue
18:01:37 [npdoty]
q?
18:01:49 [dsinger]
Dave is volunteering on the intro
18:01:55 [aleecia_]
(we'll be publishing the two docs together)
18:02:02 [justin]
matthias: tweaked intro to make less industry-centric.
18:02:06 [aleecia_]
(so not tomorrow :-)
18:02:12 [jchester2]
plus incorporate what the community group suggested
18:02:18 [justin]
dsinger: I'm working to shorten and mesh with new compliance intro
18:02:20 [WileyS]
+q
18:02:34 [jchester2]
+q
18:02:56 [npdoty]
+1 on publishing them together
18:03:05 [justin]
aleecia: complaince won't be ready until next week, and we should wait to put them both out together
18:03:16 [justin]
justin: agree we need to publish them together
18:03:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.310.292.aall
18:03:26 [fielding]
jchester2, perhaps you could paste the community group input specific to the intro directly in the WG mailing list?
18:03:27 [aleecia_]
This reminds me: I need to add a note at the start of the Compliance doc that we have feedback we have not responded to from the WG. Ideally that's in both docs as a note.
18:03:39 [Zakim]
- +1.212.565.aahh
18:03:50 [npdoty]
action: singer to work on updates to TPE introduction (harmonize with Shane/John)
18:03:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-140 - Work on updates to TPE introduction (harmonize with Shane/John) [on David Singer - due 2012-03-07].
18:03:52 [npdoty]
q?
18:03:53 [npdoty]
q?
18:03:54 [npdoty]
q?
18:04:08 [justin]
matthias, do you want to go to the queue?
18:04:17 [schunter]
q?
18:04:19 [schunter]
q?
18:04:22 [npdoty]
ack npdoty
18:04:22 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to ask about "cross-site"
18:04:25 [WileyS]
-q
18:04:32 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
18:04:32 [Zakim]
Rigo was already muted, rigo
18:04:49 [schunter]
q?
18:04:53 [schunter]
ack tl
18:05:00 [schunter]
ack jchester
18:05:14 [fielding]
actually, cross-site was removed since the last WD
18:05:20 [johnsimpson]
zakim, johnsimpson is 310.292aall
18:05:21 [Zakim]
+310.292aall; got it
18:05:24 [justin]
jchester2: agree that intro needs to be more balanced than it is now
18:05:27 [aleecia_]
and may go back in at some point
18:05:41 [aleecia_]
I'd be happy with a note to that effect
18:05:46 [npdoty]
fielding, removed from the text but then added in the introduction? (and now we have an explicit issue noted)
18:05:47 [aleecia_]
That it's a live discussion
18:05:53 [rigo]
roy, it's still in the introduction
18:06:07 [aleecia_]
q+
18:06:07 [rigo]
+1 to let David try
18:06:11 [aleecia_]
+1
18:06:12 [justin]
dsinger, intro should just say what the spec does
18:06:12 [fielding]
it was in the FPWD
18:06:16 [aleecia_]
argue about text when it exists
18:06:18 [aleecia_]
q=
18:06:19 [justin]
jchester: agreed
18:06:21 [aleecia_]
q-
18:06:30 [johnsimpson]
zakim, mute me
18:06:30 [Zakim]
johnsimpson.a should now be muted
18:06:36 [aleecia_]
zakim, mute me
18:06:36 [Zakim]
sorry, aleecia_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:06:45 [npdoty]
s/dsinger, intro/dsinger: intro/
18:06:47 [rigo]
+1 to write a companion report
18:06:53 [justin]
dsinger, we could add a companion report which would be a lot of work
18:06:55 [fielding]
The spec is supposed to be readable by people not in the WG
18:06:56 [schunter]
q?
18:07:04 [npdoty]
+1 on companion doc, potentially
18:07:04 [aleecia_]
let's see David's text next week
18:07:13 [schunter]
q?
18:07:13 [npdoty]
s/dsinger, we/dsinger: we/
18:07:15 [aleecia_]
3. Determining User Preference
18:07:16 [aleecia_]
The goal of this protocol is to allow a user to express their personal preference regarding tracking to each server and web application that they communicate with via HTTP, thereby allowing each service to either adjust their behavior to meet the user's expectations or reach a separate agreement with the user to satisfy all parties.
18:07:16 [aleecia_]
Key to that notion of expression is that it must reflect the user's preference, not the preference of some institutional or network-imposed mechanism outside the user's control. Although some controlled network environments, such as public access terminals or managed corporate intranets, might impose restrictions on the use or configuration of installed user agents, such that a user might only have access to user agents with a predetermined preference enabled,
18:07:17 [aleecia_]
user is at least able to choose whether to make use of those user agents. In contrast, if a user brings their own Web-enabled device to a library or cafe with wireless Internet access, the expectation will be that their chosen user agent and personal preferences regarding Web site behavior will not be altered by the network environment, aside from blanket limitations on what sites can or cannot be accessed through that network.
18:07:18 [justin]
rigo and npdoty, I don't think dsinger actually wanted a companion report :)
18:07:22 [aleecia_]
The remainder of this specification defines the protocol in terms of whether a tracking preference is enabled or not enabled. We do not specify how that preference is enabled: each implementation is responsible for determining the user experience by which this preference is enabled.
18:07:23 [johnsimpson]
sorry just getting back via cellphone
18:07:27 [aleecia_]
For example, a user might select a check-box in their user agent's configuration, install a plug-in or extension that is specifically designed to add a tracking preference expression, or make a choice for privacy that then implicitly includes a tracking preference (e.g., Privacy settings: high). Likewise, a user might install or configure a proxy to add the expression to their own outgoing requests. For each of these cases, we say that a tracking preference is
18:07:31 [aleecia_]
enabled.
18:07:44 [aleecia_]
can we note we don't do UI here?
18:07:46 [aleecia_]
please?
18:07:59 [johnsimpson]
are we considering David's text to replace current into?
18:08:05 [aleecia_]
next week, yes
18:08:10 [schunter]
q?
18:08:11 [aleecia_]
David's still editing
18:08:17 [schunter]
q?
18:08:18 [WileyS]
Should we note the open issue on site-specific exception header value?
18:08:23 [WileyS]
+q
18:08:32 [fielding]
aleecia_, where?
18:09:01 [aleecia_]
section 3, para starts: "For example, a user might select a check-box in their user agent's configuration, ..."
18:09:05 [justin]
tl, concerns about statement that user isn't expressing preference, but he faded out so I missed the middle
18:09:14 [aleecia_]
I'd like to end that with a note that we don't do UI, as per charter.
18:09:24 [fielding]
but that's just an example
18:09:25 [justin]
tl: second bullet of Section 4 is wrong
18:09:40 [npdoty]
you're suggesting add another bullet: "the user is not expressing a preference"
18:10:03 [dsinger]
the user agent does implement the protocol but there is no user preference expressed.
18:10:19 [aleecia_]
I have no problem with the text as it is for 3 - would just like to add a quick "don't shoot!" :-)
18:10:19 [tl]
at this time.
18:10:33 [aleecia_]
we're discussing:
18:10:35 [aleecia_]
If a tracking preference is not enabled, then no preference is expressed by this protocol. This means that no expression is sent for each of the following cases:
18:10:35 [aleecia_]
the user agent does not implement this protocol; or
18:10:35 [aleecia_]
the user agent does implement the protocol but the user has not yet enabled a preference.
18:10:51 [rigo]
I wonder about the legal difference between both wordings
18:10:52 [aleecia_]
why is that, Tom?
18:10:55 [aleecia_]
not following
18:11:15 [aleecia_]
That would be good to make explicit!
18:11:23 [aleecia_]
…meh?
18:11:45 [aleecia_]
(not sure a Y!-specific don't express a pref is interesting)
18:11:47 [rigo]
q+
18:11:58 [schunter]
q?
18:12:14 [justin]
discussion about how specific the expression of preference needs to be (I think)
18:12:15 [rigo]
you're talking the wrong horizon, It is not the user, but what the server understands
18:12:19 [dsinger]
the user agent does implement the protocol but the user does not wish to indicate a preference
18:12:22 [aleecia_]
Tom, could you type some text here of what you'd like?
18:12:39 [aleecia_]
lovely
18:12:47 [rigo]
q?
18:12:52 [schunter]
q?
18:12:57 [justin]
agreement on new third bullet to be added
18:12:58 [schunter]
ack WileyS
18:13:13 [aleecia_]
different section.
18:13:24 [justin]
wileyS: can we note that there is open discussion around different header value for exceptions
18:13:25 [npdoty]
WileyS is referring to ISSUE-111, which is included below
18:13:28 [vm]
vm has left #dnt
18:13:33 [Zakim]
-Nokia
18:13:37 [justin]
everybody else: move it below
18:13:46 [aleecia_]
"see section 6"?
18:13:55 [aleecia_]
x-ref to it?
18:14:12 [aleecia_]
If it's hard to read, that's a good reason to x-ref but not duplicate
18:14:32 [WileyS]
Who just spoke?
18:14:44 [dsinger]
but we're talking here about the cases when nothing is sent...
18:14:45 [fielding]
there was an issue marker there a couple days ago
18:14:48 [WileyS]
Didn't catch whatever that last person said
18:14:49 [aleecia_]
putting issue in sounds good
18:14:55 [fielding]
was it commented out?
18:14:55 [justin]
consensus on just adding an issue/x-ref
18:14:58 [aleecia_]
thanks, Shane!
18:15:05 [schunter]
I´´ll take this action
18:15:09 [justin]
background meowing
18:15:18 [npdoty]
issue-111
18:15:26 [dsinger]
issue-111?
18:15:26 [trackbot]
ISSUE-111 -- Different DNT value to signify existence of site-specific exception -- pending review
18:15:26 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/111
18:15:37 [aleecia_]
so section 4: add link to issue-111, add 3rd bullet with David's text plus "at this time"
18:15:50 [rigo]
q?
18:15:59 [npdoty]
q?
18:16:01 [rigo]
ack rig
18:16:16 [aleecia_]
?
18:16:35 [schunter]
q?
18:16:55 [npdoty]
dsinger: will edit doc so all text is in a subsection or in a section without subsections
18:17:19 [justin]
rigo: concerned about adding third bullet from a legal perspective
18:17:43 [Zakim]
-PederMagee
18:17:46 [aleecia_]
q+
18:17:55 [tl]
+q
18:17:57 [fielding]
actually, these are instructions to user agent implementers
18:18:13 [aleecia_]
disagree
18:18:17 [tl]
'Zactly. +1 fielding.
18:18:20 [justin]
. . . need to be clear that signal comes from service instead of focus on user intent
18:18:49 [tl]
aleecia_, we define what it looks like at the user end, and that inherently defines what the server can understand?
18:19:08 [aleecia_]
DNT is a user preference at core
18:19:16 [aleecia_]
that's what makes DNT different
18:19:28 [aleecia_]
q?
18:19:32 [tl]
Exactly, and we're making clear *what* preference we're seeing?
18:19:34 [schunter]
q?
18:19:43 [Zakim]
-efelten
18:20:43 [ninjamarnau]
the two bullets list cases in non-normative text
18:20:58 [aleecia_]
oh: Rigo's *only* talking about the null case
18:21:14 [aleecia_]
then I agree with him, but think the text is fine
18:21:29 [aleecia_]
…and there I disagree again
18:21:45 [aleecia_]
q?
18:21:52 [justin]
fielding: we had a long discussion about this, these bullets are to give needed guidance to implementers
18:22:11 [aleecia_]
q?
18:22:13 [aleecia_]
;-)
18:22:18 [justin]
rigo: then make clear what this is supposed to be doing
18:22:37 [rigo]
make clear that you now are talking about user agent guidance
18:22:39 [npdoty]
rigo, do you want to draft some text that would address your concern and make it clear that this is for user agents rather than servers?
18:22:57 [aleecia_]
q?
18:22:59 [npdoty]
q?
18:22:59 [justin]
rigo tasked with adding language to address his concerns
18:23:07 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
18:23:07 [Zakim]
Rigo should now be muted
18:23:11 [schunter]
ack aleecia_
18:23:38 [justin]
aleecia: we need this text and we need more of it to give needed guidance
18:23:38 [npdoty]
action: rigo to draft text on clarity that this is for user agents (addressing his concern)
18:23:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-141 - Draft text on clarity that this is for user agents (addressing his concern) [on Rigo Wenning - due 2012-03-07].
18:24:04 [tl]
-q
18:24:29 [aleecia_]
Now discussing: 4.1 DNT Header Field for HTTP Requests
18:24:39 [npdoty]
backlash?
18:24:42 [fielding]
just to avoid inflict with JSON embedding
18:24:53 [fielding]
typo, thanks nick
18:25:03 [npdoty]
q+
18:25:04 [tl]
+q
18:25:07 [aleecia_]
of note: Jonathan believes "A user agent must not send the DNT header field if a tracking preference is not enabled" is not closed
18:25:17 [justin]
schunter: looking for comments on 4.1
18:25:22 [aleecia_]
(I'm not sure if he is correct or not, but he raised issues)
18:25:31 [justin]
npdoty: can we just close this and exclude the JSON characters?
18:25:38 [aleecia_]
+1 on closing JSON
18:25:39 [dsinger]
(issue 111 is marked here as open, but in the issue database as pending review. which is right?)
18:25:49 [tl]
+1
18:25:54 [fielding]
s/inflict/conflict/
18:25:55 [schunter]
q?
18:25:56 [aleecia_]
close issue-126?
18:25:58 [npdoty]
q-
18:26:02 [schunter]
q/
18:26:05 [schunter]
q?
18:26:09 [schunter]
ack tl
18:26:19 [justin]
consensus on closing 126
18:26:21 [npdoty]
close issue-126
18:26:22 [trackbot]
ISSUE-126 DNT-extension syntax includes characters not safe to embed in JSON closed
18:27:01 [justin]
dsinger: one issue is marked as pending review here and open elsewhere . . . which is right?
18:27:03 [aleecia_]
perhaps we could add the 2 different proposals?
18:27:09 [aleecia_]
+1 to Nick
18:27:13 [justin]
npdoty: perhaps we can option-box these
18:27:14 [WileyS]
T-minus 4 minutes to end of meeting. Should someone review work to be completed between now and next meeting?
18:27:26 [tl]
+q
18:27:33 [tl]
-q
18:27:35 [aleecia_]
Shane: I'll send to the mailing list
18:27:46 [WileyS]
Thank you Aleecia!
18:27:59 [aleecia_]
And I'm sorry this hasn't been as organized as I would have liked. We've all been a bit busy for some reason...
18:28:02 [justin]
schunter: leaving issue-84 and others as open
18:28:17 [npdoty]
+1 on "We've all been a bit busy for some reason..."
18:28:25 [aleecia_]
4.3 Plug-In APIs
18:28:25 [aleecia_]
User agents often include user-installable component parts, commonly known as plug-ins or browser extensions, that are capable of making their own network requests. From the user's perspective, these components are considered part of the user agent and thus ought to respect the user's configuration of a tracking preference. However, plug-ins do not normally have read access to the browser configuration. Therefore, we will define here various mechanisms for
18:28:25 [aleecia_]
communicating the tracking preference via common plug-in APIs.
18:28:33 [justin]
4.3 --- no comments from group
18:28:43 [aleecia_]
4.4 Tracking Preference Expressed in Other Protocols
18:28:43 [aleecia_]
A user's tracking preference is intended to apply in general, regardless of the protocols being used for Internet communication. The protocol expressed here is specific to HTTP communication; however, the semantics are not restricted to use in HTTP; the same semantics may be carried by other protocols, either in future revisions of this specification, or in other specifications.
18:28:43 [aleecia_]
When it is known that the user's preference is for no tracking, compliant services are still required to honor that preference, even if other protocols are used. For example, re-directing to another protocol in order to avoid receipt of the header is not compliant.
18:28:46 [schunter]
q?
18:29:05 [aleecia_]
could add, though not sure where off hand
18:29:06 [npdoty]
looks good to me, dsinger
18:29:10 [rigo]
+1 to 4.4
18:29:25 [aleecia_]
David, we could add though off hand i'm not sure where
18:29:25 [tl]
+1
18:29:27 [schunter]
q??
18:29:29 [aleecia_]
out of time.
18:29:37 [justin]
dsinger: second para for 4.4 should be in compliance
18:29:50 [fielding]
does that mean we close the issue 108?
18:29:57 [justin]
FWIW, we have a similar para in compliance already, but we should probably make sure they are precisely in accord
18:29:58 [aleecia_]
+1 on both
18:29:59 [npdoty]
+1 for publish both and ask for feedback on both from implementers
18:30:12 [aleecia_]
and then we're out of time
18:30:12 [WileyS]
Great meeting - thank you everyone - have a great day!
18:30:24 [schunter]
q?
18:30:25 [justin]
schunter: looking for feedback if anyone objects to waiting to publish together
18:30:34 [johnsimpson]
+1 publish both
18:30:42 [aleecia_]
after we publish
18:30:56 [dsinger]
notes that I re-ordered the text in 5.2, and Tom is checking I didn't break anything
18:31:06 [Zakim]
-WileyS
18:31:10 [aleecia_]
we'll need to do timelines after we get things out, but we're not there yet
18:31:16 [Zakim]
-andyzei
18:31:26 [aleecia_]
call over time
18:31:34 [justin]
<flashes lights on and off>
18:31:45 [fielding]
aleecia_, yes
18:31:50 [aleecia_]
<3
18:32:16 [justin]
schunter: looking for feedback on header/URI issue
18:32:38 [schunter]
q
18:32:43 [rigo]
q?
18:32:48 [schunter]
q?
18:32:58 [fielding]
I think we closed 108
18:33:01 [Zakim]
-ChrisPedigoOPA
18:33:04 [Zakim]
-justin.a
18:33:05 [Zakim]
-justin
18:33:05 [npdoty]
thanks, good progress!
18:33:06 [Zakim]
-jchester2
18:33:09 [Zakim]
-cOlsen.a
18:33:15 [Zakim]
-Rigo
18:33:17 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
18:33:18 [Zakim]
- +1.310.292.aall
18:33:18 [Zakim]
-aleecia
18:33:20 [Zakim]
-Chapell
18:33:20 [Zakim]
-tl
18:33:22 [Zakim]
- +1.646.654.aakk
18:33:22 [Zakim]
-npdoty
18:33:24 [Zakim]
-alex
18:33:28 [Zakim]
-??P36
18:33:35 [Zakim]
-[IBM_Watson]
18:33:41 [Zakim]
-dsriedel
18:33:59 [Zakim]
-aadd.a
18:34:35 [Zakim]
-ninjamarnau
18:34:49 [Zakim]
-[Apple]
18:34:57 [npdoty]
zakim, list attendees
18:34:57 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been tl, aleecia, ninjamarnau, PederMagee, efelten, npdoty, fielding, cOlsen, kevint, +5aaaa, +1.408.349.aabb, +1.202.637.aacc, [IBM_Watson],
18:35:00 [Zakim]
... jchester2, +1.202.684.aadd, dsriedel, dsinger, +1.206.619.aaee, +1.617.733.aaff, WileyS, Rigo, justin, alex, +1.202.744.aagg, +1.212.565.aahh, BrianTs, ChrisPedigoOPA, andyzei,
18:35:00 [Zakim]
... wseltzer, +385221aaii, Chapell, aadd, +1.917.934.aajj, +1.646.654.aakk, Nokia, +1.310.292.aall, 310.292aall
18:35:09 [npdoty]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:35:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:35:15 [aleecia_]
(thanks, Nick!)
18:35:40 [npdoty]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference
18:35:42 [aleecia_]
would've been *very* grumpy to lose these :-)
18:36:37 [npdoty]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:36:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:36:42 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-actions.rdf :
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: lowenthal to draft alternate proposal on first-party targeting based on registration information [1]
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-irc#T17-10-28
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: singer to investigate definitions of user action/input in HTML5 or similar specs [2]
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-irc#T17-56-54
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: lowenthal to Improve wording of 3.9 "Meaningful Interaction" to avoid "affirmatively clicking" and make sure that "clicking" is replaced with something more general. [3]
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-irc#T17-57-27
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: singer to work on updates to TPE introduction (harmonize with Shane/John) [4]
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-irc#T18-03-50
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: rigo to draft text on clarity that this is for user agents (addressing his concern) [5]
18:36:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-irc#T18-23-38-1
18:36:44 [npdoty]
Zakim, bye
18:36:44 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were tl, aleecia, ninjamarnau, PederMagee, efelten, npdoty, fielding, cOlsen, kevint, +5aaaa, +1.408.349.aabb, +1.202.637.aacc,
18:36:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt
18:36:47 [Zakim]
... [IBM_Watson], jchester2, +1.202.684.aadd, dsriedel, dsinger, +1.206.619.aaee, +1.617.733.aaff, WileyS, Rigo, justin, alex, +1.202.744.aagg, +1.212.565.aahh, BrianTs,
18:36:47 [Zakim]
... ChrisPedigoOPA, andyzei, wseltzer, +385221aaii, Chapell, aadd, +1.917.934.aajj, +1.646.654.aakk, Nokia, +1.310.292.aall, 310.292aall
18:36:49 [npdoty]
trackbot, bye
18:36:49 [trackbot]
trackbot has left #dnt