IRC log of dnt on 2012-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:56:02 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:56:04 [aleecia]
Zakim, ??P4 is schunter
15:56:04 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
15:56:08 [npdoty]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:56:09 [aleecia]
15:56:10 [schunter]
Zakim, ??P4 is schunter
15:56:16 [Zakim]
I already had ??P4 as schunter, schunter
15:56:24 [rigo]
zakim, code?
15:56:25 [Zakim]
the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, rigo
15:57:01 [Zakim]
15:57:10 [Zakim]
15:57:15 [AClearwater]
AClearwater has joined #dnt
15:57:17 [rigo]
zakim, rigo is me
15:57:17 [Zakim]
+rigo; got it
15:57:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.835.aaaa
15:57:33 [npdoty]
regrets+ jchester
15:57:35 [Marc]
Marc has joined #DNT
15:57:49 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
15:58:00 [aleecia]
Nick, I added Jeff and Ninja already
15:58:09 [Zakim]
15:58:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aabb
15:58:20 [efelten]
Zakim, aabb is me
15:58:20 [Zakim]
+efelten; got it
15:58:21 [ifette]
Zakim, Loretta is ifette
15:58:21 [Zakim]
+ifette; got it
15:58:25 [ifette]
that's really annoying
15:58:42 [schunter]
Zakim, who is online
15:58:48 [ifette]
Anyone know how to get Zakim to show the phone number associated with what it thinks is a name?
15:58:48 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is online', schunter
15:58:55 [ifette]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:58:58 [Zakim]
15:59:00 [Marc]
Marc 202.835
15:59:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, schunter, alex, rvaneijk, rigo.a, npdoty, +1.202.835.aaaa, ifette, efelten, alex.a (muted)
15:59:03 [alex]
zakim, mute me
15:59:04 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:59:07 [Zakim]
alex should now be muted
15:59:16 [rigo]
zakim, aaaa is Marc
15:59:21 [rvaneijk]
Zakim, aaaa is Marc
15:59:21 [Zakim]
+Marc; got it
15:59:25 [Zakim]
sorry, rvaneijk, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
15:59:27 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
15:59:30 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
15:59:50 [rvaneijk]
rigo, you win :)
15:59:52 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:57 [ifette]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:00:14 [Zakim]
16:00:17 [schunter]
mute me
16:00:19 [ifette]
someone has funky background noise
16:00:20 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
16:00:25 [Zakim]
ifette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (12%)
16:00:28 [ifette]
16:00:33 [vinent]
vinent has joined #dnt
16:00:37 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:00:38 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
16:00:43 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
16:00:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.733.aacc
16:01:14 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:01:26 [ifette]
Zakim, 618 is ifette
16:01:39 [AClearwater]
Zakim, aacc is AClearwater
16:01:39 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
16:01:42 [eberkower]
646 is eberkower
16:01:52 [ifette]
zakim, 618 is ifette
16:01:55 [Zakim]
sorry, ifette, I do not recognize a party named '618'
16:01:57 [ifette]
16:01:58 [efelten]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:59 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:02:01 [tl]
Sprint is unable to complete my call at this time.
16:02:07 [tl]
16:02:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aadd
16:02:14 [Zakim]
16:02:16 [npdoty]
Zakim, aadd is eberkower
16:02:16 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
16:02:17 [Zakim]
16:02:21 [eberkower]
646 654 is eberkower
16:02:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.916.641.aaee
16:02:25 [aleecia]
(thank you Nick)
16:02:26 [rigo]
zakim, aadd is eberkower
16:02:28 [Zakim]
+AClearwater; got it
16:02:40 [Joanne]
Zakim, +1.916.641 is Joanne
16:02:50 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaee is Joanne
16:02:51 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:02:57 [rigo]
zakim, aaee is Joanne
16:03:00 [Zakim]
sorry, ifette, I do not recognize a party named '618'
16:03:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fielding, AClearwater, +1.646.654.aadd, ??P64, ??P60, +1.916.641.aaee, aleecia, schunter, alex (muted), rvaneijk, rigo.a, npdoty, Marc, ifette, efelten, alex.a
16:03:07 [npdoty]
ack schunter
16:03:08 [vincent]
zakim, ??P60 is vincent
16:03:18 [Zakim]
+eberkower; got it
16:03:18 [Ionel]
Ionel has joined #dnt
16:03:20 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:03:23 [aleecia]
16:03:25 [Zakim]
16:03:27 [pedermagee]
pedermagee has joined #dnt
16:03:27 [Zakim]
sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
16:03:42 [vincent]
Zakim, ??P60 is vincent
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:03:47 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
16:03:50 [Zakim]
+Joanne; got it
16:03:54 [aleecia]
next agendum
16:03:55 [Zakim]
sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
16:03:56 [npdoty]
16:03:57 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
16:03:59 [Zakim]
16:04:03 [eberkower]
aadd = +1 646 654 = eberkower
16:04:07 [tl]
zakim, mute me
16:04:08 [Zakim]
sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
16:04:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aaff
16:04:20 [Zakim]
+vincent; got it
16:04:23 [schunter]
16:04:23 [Zakim]
16:04:25 [aleecia]
would you like me to scribe today?
16:04:26 [rigo]
zakim, who is here?
16:04:40 [aleecia]
scribe: aleecia
16:04:59 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:05:01 [Zakim]
I already had ??P60 as vincent, vincent
16:05:14 [justin_]
justin_ has joined #dnt
16:05:15 [Zakim]
16:05:18 [npdoty]
scribenick: tedleung
16:05:25 [Zakim]
tl should now be muted
16:05:29 [aleecia]
close agendum 1
16:05:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.664.aagg
16:05:40 [Anna]
Anna has joined #dnt
16:05:42 [tedleung]
zakim, aagg is tedleung
16:05:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fielding, AClearwater, eberkower, ??P64, vincent, Joanne, vinay, ??P20, tl (muted), +1.202.326.aaff, justin, bilcorry, +1.206.664.aagg, aleecia, schunter, alex
16:05:45 [rigo]
zakim, aagg is Anna
16:05:46 [aleecia]
next agendum
16:05:51 [Zakim]
... (muted), rvaneijk, rigo.a, npdoty, Marc, ifette, efelten, alex.a
16:06:06 [tedleung]
review of overdue action items
16:06:09 [aleecia]
16:06:09 [Zakim]
+ +40.72.321.aahh
16:06:10 [npdoty]
Zakim, Anna is Anna_Long
16:06:20 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:06:25 [Zakim]
16:06:28 [npdoty]
16:06:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-131 -- Roy Fielding to sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource -- due 2012-04-25 -- OPEN
16:06:28 [trackbot]
16:06:28 [ifette]
16:06:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-131 -- Roy Fielding to sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource -- due 2012-04-25 -- OPEN
16:06:30 [trackbot]
16:06:50 [Zakim]
+tedleung; got it
16:06:57 [Zakim]
sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aagg'
16:06:58 [tedleung]
waiting until response is clarified. Postponed 1 wk
16:06:59 [ifette]
ACTION-131 due 2012-05-09
16:06:59 [trackbot]
ACTION-131 Sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource due date now 2012-05-09
16:07:02 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:07:03 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:07:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Anna, justin_, kj, tedleung, pedermagee, Ionel, vinay, Joanne, eberkower, vincent, jchester2, hefferjr, fielding, sidstamm, ifette, Marc, AClearwater, RRSAgent,
16:07:07 [Zakim]
... rvaneijk, npdoty, efelten, alex, rigo, aleecia, schunter, tl, tlr, trackbot, Zakim, hober, wseltzer_iiw, pde
16:07:11 [Zakim]
16:07:15 [aleecia]
(updating Ninja's now per email)
16:07:26 [ifette]
16:07:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-141 -- Rigo Wenning to draft text on clarity that this is for user agents (addressing his concern) -- due 2012-03-07 -- OPEN
16:07:26 [trackbot]
16:07:29 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:07:29 [Zakim]
sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'Anna'
16:07:52 [npdoty]
Rigo wrote this:
16:07:57 [tedleung]
rigo to review action
16:08:01 [ifette]
16:08:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-150 -- Ninja Marnau to analyse EU legal implications of exceptions to (thissite, *) -- due 2012-05-04 -- OPEN
16:08:01 [trackbot]
16:08:12 [aleecia]
(added more time for Ninja)
16:08:13 [tedleung]
ninja needs more time for her actions
16:08:17 [Lia]
Lia has joined #dnt
16:08:19 [aleecia]
(taken care of)
16:08:46 [tedleung]
rigo done with work for action-141
16:08:50 [fielding]
ACTION-163 due 2012-05-09
16:08:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-163 Explain confusion or an alternative to text explaining the interaction with existing user privacy controls due date now 2012-05-09
16:08:52 [npdoty]
rigo, what do you mean that you don't see it in tracker?
16:08:57 [ifette]
ACTION-141: rigo thinks this is done
16:08:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-141 Draft text on clarity that this is for user agents (addressing his concern) notes added
16:08:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.744.aaii
16:09:00 [dsriedel]
dsriedel has joined #dnt
16:09:02 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:09:03 [npdoty]
pde, are you here?
16:09:07 [Zakim]
16:09:07 [aleecia]
I know Peter and Shane are working on this
16:09:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aajj
16:09:13 [Zakim]
16:09:13 [aleecia]
Last I heard, it's not done.
16:09:15 [tl]
pde is rarely on the calls
16:09:20 [aleecia]
But is well in progress.
16:09:22 [rigo]
zakim, who is making noise
16:09:25 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:09:26 [rigo]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:09:31 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:09:35 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:09:35 [ifette]
16:09:35 [trackbot]
ACTION-153 -- Jonathan Mayer to draft a permitted use/definition for unlinkable data -- due 2012-04-04 -- CLOSED
16:09:35 [trackbot]
16:09:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.587.aakk
16:09:43 [npdoty]
16:09:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-163 -- Roy Fielding to explain confusion or an alternative to text explaining the interaction with existing user privacy controls -- due 2012-05-09 -- OPEN
16:09:43 [trackbot]
16:09:44 [schunter]
Zakim, who is making noise
16:09:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.643.aall
16:09:46 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
16:09:50 [tedleung]
action-163 pushed back 1 week
16:09:53 [ifette]
16:09:53 [trackbot]
ACTION-166 -- Heather West to draft updated text on definitions of "collection" and similar terms "Data collection, retention, use, and sharing" (with fielding) -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN
16:09:53 [trackbot]
16:09:55 [Lia]
Zakim, aakk is me
16:09:57 [Zakim]
16:10:00 [bilcorry]
bilcorry has joined #dnt
16:10:01 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (69%), fielding (4%), vincent (15%)
16:10:05 [ifette]
ACTION-166 due 2012-05-09
16:10:05 [trackbot]
ACTION-166 Draft updated text on definitions of "collection" and similar terms "Data collection, retention, use, and sharing" (with fielding) due date now 2012-05-09
16:10:08 [Zakim]
16:10:10 [tedleung]
action-166 delayed by one week
16:10:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', rigo
16:10:12 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
16:10:15 [Zakim]
rigo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (21%), fielding (9%), vincent (5%)
16:10:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', schunter
16:10:21 [Zakim]
+ +49.721.91.aamm
16:10:23 [hwest]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:10:23 [Zakim]
+Lia; got it
16:10:25 [ifette]
16:10:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-169 -- Rigo Wenning to create text describing "if your privacy policies don't match, don't claim an associated domain" -- due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN
16:10:25 [trackbot]
16:10:27 [Zakim]
16:10:27 [vincent]
hum i'm on mute actually, i must have get the wrong prot number
16:10:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fielding, AClearwater, eberkower, ??P64, vincent, Joanne, vinay, ??P20, tl (muted), +1.202.326.aaff, justin, bilcorry, tedleung, +40.72.321.aahh, ??P78,
16:10:32 [Zakim]
... justin.a, +1.202.744.aaii, Chapell, +1.202.326.aajj, ??P86, Lia, +1.202.643.aall, [Microsoft], KevinT, +49.721.91.aamm, johnsimpson, aleecia, schunter, alex (muted), rvaneijk,
16:10:33 [Lia]
Zakim, mute me
16:10:34 [dsriedel]
zakim, aamm is dsriedel
16:10:35 [Zakim]
... rigo.a, npdoty, Marc, ifette, efelten, alex.a
16:10:48 [Zakim]
Lia should now be muted
16:10:51 [Zakim]
+dsriedel; got it
16:10:55 [Zakim]
16:10:55 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
16:10:56 [ifette]
ACTION-169 due 2012-05-09
16:10:56 [trackbot]
ACTION-169 Create text describing "if your privacy policies don't match, don't claim an associated domain" due date now 2012-05-09
16:10:59 [tedleung]
action-169 delayed 1 week
16:11:00 [vincent]
Zakim, ??P64 is vincent
16:11:01 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
16:11:06 [ifette]
16:11:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-170 -- Heather West to provide an alternative approach to well-known URI for resources that are used in both first-party and third-party contexts without changing the resource URI -- due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN
16:11:06 [trackbot]
16:11:09 [Zakim]
+vincent; got it
16:11:16 [ifette]
ACTION-170 due 2012-05-09
16:11:16 [trackbot]
ACTION-170 Provide an alternative approach to well-known URI for resources that are used in both first-party and third-party contexts without changing the resource URI due date now 2012-05-09
16:11:21 [johnsimpson]
apologies for joining late
16:11:21 [tedleung]
action-170 delayed 1 week
16:11:38 [ifette]
16:11:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-190 -- Ian Fette to write up proposal for allowed uses for protocol data in the first N weeks -- due 2012-05-02 -- OPEN
16:11:40 [trackbot]
16:11:40 [ifette]
16:11:47 [enewland]
enewland has joined #dnt
16:11:48 [npdoty]
16:11:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.981.aann
16:11:53 [aleecia]
thanks Justin - that's going to be useful sooner rather than later, I think
16:12:04 [Zakim]
16:12:10 [BrendanIAB]
BrendanIAB has joined #DNT
16:12:16 [tl]
zakim, aann is me.
16:12:16 [Zakim]
+tl; got it
16:12:17 [aleecia]
16:12:20 [enewland]
zakim, who is here
16:12:20 [Zakim]
enewland, you need to end that query with '?'
16:12:28 [enewland]
zakim, who is here?
16:12:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fielding, AClearwater, eberkower, vincent.a, vincent, Joanne, vinay, ??P20, +1.202.326.aaff, justin, bilcorry, tedleung, +40.72.321.aahh, ??P78, justin.a,
16:12:29 [Zakim]
... +1.202.744.aaii, Chapell, +1.202.326.aajj, ??P86, Lia (muted), +1.202.643.aall, [Microsoft], KevinT, dsriedel (muted), johnsimpson, jmayer, tl, aleecia, schunter, alex (muted),
16:12:29 [Zakim]
... rvaneijk, rigo.a, npdoty, Marc, ifette, efelten, alex.a
16:12:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see BrendanIAB, enewland, jmayer, bilcorry, KevinT, JC, Chris_IAB, johnsimpson, dsriedel, Lia, hwest, cOlsen, Chapell, ChrisPedigoOPA, Anna, justin_, kj, tedleung,
16:12:37 [Zakim]
... pedermagee, Ionel, vinay, Joanne, eberkower, vincent, jchester2, hefferjr, fielding, sidstamm, ifette, Marc, AClearwater, RRSAgent, rvaneijk, npdoty, efelten, alex, rigo,
16:12:41 [Zakim]
... aleecia, schunter, tl, tlr, trackbot, Zakim, hober, wseltzer_iiw, pde
16:12:45 [aleecia]
16:12:46 [tedleung]
New Business
16:12:59 [fielding]
16:13:05 [aleecia]
close agendum 2
16:13:10 [aleecia]
next agendum
16:13:12 [bilcorry]
Zakim, mute me
16:13:19 [ifette]
16:13:21 [Zakim]
bilcorry should now be muted
16:13:22 [enewland]
zakim, justin.a is enewland
16:13:26 [ifette]
16:13:29 [Zakim]
+enewland; got it
16:13:31 [ifette]
Zakim, take up agendum 3
16:13:38 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Review / feedback on hybrid proposal in spec (Section 5 of" taken up [from aleecia]
16:13:54 [kj_]
kj_ has joined #dnt
16:14:08 [Zakim]
16:14:11 [tl]
16:14:12 [schunter]
16:14:12 [aleecia]
5.1 Overview
16:14:13 [aleecia]
The Tracking Protection protocol is designed to be applicable regardless of the response from servers that receive the tracking preference expression, allowing conformance to be achieved without impacting the operational performance of site resources. However, there is also a desire to support verification or pre-flight testing of a site's conformance with this protocol for evaluating conformance before sending data, enabling specialized user interfaces,
16:14:14 [aleecia]
discovering the scope of protocol deployment, and testing adherence to potential regulations.
16:14:15 [aleecia]
This section explains how a user agent may discover an origin server's tracking status for a given resource. It defines a required well-known tracking status resource for describing a machine-readable tracking status and a Tk response header field that may be sent in any HTTP response and must be sent in responses to requests that modify the tracking status for that user agent.
16:14:23 [schunter]
ack tl
16:14:38 [tl]
[my phone just disconnected, so I'm typing my comments]
16:15:12 [tl]
It does not look as though the most recent draft which we discussed in DC has been incorporated into section 5.
16:15:15 [aleecia]
I don't understand the phrasing of "regardless of the response from servers"
16:15:27 [Zakim]
16:15:36 [schunter]
16:15:43 [rigo]
16:16:07 [npdoty]
we're looking at:
16:16:08 [vincent]
Zakim, ??P64 is really vincent
16:16:08 [Zakim]
+vincent; got it
16:16:15 [tedleung]
tl: does the current text include the changes discussed in DC?
16:16:17 [egrant]
egrant has joined #DNT
16:16:45 [tedleung]
fielding: I merged the content into the draft keeping to "best editorial style"
16:16:54 [npdoty]
fielding, are there substantive differences from what you discussed in DC?
16:17:18 [tedleung]
fielding: in some cases i changed the content
16:17:18 [npdoty]
maybe could you summarize those changes for us quickly?
16:17:40 [tedleung]
schunter: are we seeing disagreement between the proposal co-authors?
16:17:45 [rigo]
16:17:55 [aleecia]
(What I think you're saying is that servers can respond in two different ways, rather than "regardless of the response" which to means something a little different)
16:18:12 [npdoty]
16:18:23 [tedleung]
following npdoty's suggestion to summarize the changes
16:19:11 [rigo]
to me this looks like too much P3P reloaded and thus does not respect the direction of the protocol
16:19:24 [tedleung]
tl: it looks like the vast majority of normative content that I proposed was not added
16:19:32 [rigo]
16:19:35 [Zakim]
16:19:41 [schunter]
16:19:44 [fielding]
16:19:47 [tl]
Well, this phone connection is just fantastic.
16:20:12 [Zakim]
16:20:26 [tl]
And I'm back.
16:21:04 [tedleung]
rigo: i was originally a proponent of a feedback mechanism, but what we have now looks close to a P3P protocol, e.g. an announcement of a policy, which is the reverse direction from DNT
16:21:12 [schunter]
16:21:16 [rigo]
ack ri
16:21:24 [npdoty]
rigo, is your concern about the complexity of the well-known URI content? or that it doesn't seem responsive to the user expressed preference?
16:21:29 [johnsimpson]
16:21:41 [rigo]
the second
16:21:59 [schunter]
16:22:20 [tedleung]
schunter: what exactly don't you like about the proposal
16:22:36 [tl]
Correction: the I was looking at an old cache. I retract my concerns.
16:22:45 [fielding]
To be clear, we DID NOT have consensus on Tom's text at the DC meeting. We didn't even discuss it as a WG whole -- only in a single breakout section -- and even then we did not receive consensus. So I am trying to find a proposal that addresses EVERYONE''s concerns, not just Tom.
16:23:03 [schunter]
tom: Is it OK to discuss the section anyway?
16:23:11 [tedleung]
rigo: I fear it's getting so complicated that it's almost becoming a policy, it's not just reflecting the preference of the user
16:23:45 [schunter]
fielding: I perceived that a majority was OK with tom's 'minimal' header proposal that was created with Shane, Rigo, and others.
16:24:01 [tl]
16:24:12 [schunter]
16:24:18 [tedleung]
fielding: that's not the use case that we have in front of us
16:24:30 [tedleung]
tl: agrees with fielding
16:24:32 [aleecia]
Rigo we're trying to build so that user agents can express these details if they wish
16:25:02 [tedleung]
schunter: i'm unsure because we don't really have a complete set of technical requirements
16:25:19 [npdoty]
fielding, you were making the point that this isn't just an echo, which I believe Rigo would agree with
16:25:46 [rigo]
16:25:52 [schunter]
16:26:01 [tedleung]
tl: we looked at the technical requirements and added the necessary fields
16:26:15 [npdoty]
I thought we hadn't actually considered the list of fields as a group, leaving that open until later
16:26:45 [aleecia]
Perhaps now is later
16:26:49 [aleecia]
as it were
16:27:04 [tedleung]
back and forth between schunter and tl regarding the set of requirements
16:27:04 [ifette]
oh really?
16:27:10 [npdoty]
aleecia, yes, I think we've reached now now
16:27:22 [ifette]
if any one person has a requirement it goes into the spec?
16:27:29 [ifette]
in that case, i have lots of requirements
16:27:42 [tl]
As long as nobody else objects.
16:28:08 [rigo]
16:28:11 [tedleung]
claim is that requirements for a single person can be added to the spec, unless there are objections
16:28:13 [schunter]
ack tl
16:28:15 [aleecia]
The second paragraph in the intro seems clear to me
16:28:16 [fielding]
Should we restore the section on WG notes?
16:28:32 [aleecia]
16:28:46 [schunter]
16:28:51 [npdoty]
ack aleecia
16:29:00 [ifette]
16:29:07 [tedleung]
schunter: we now must have a well-known URI, we cannot just use headers
16:29:51 [tl]
This is not the text that we reviewed in DC, there have been substantial modifications.
16:30:03 [rigo]
16:30:03 [tedleung]
fielding: was trying to say the server must respond
16:30:10 [schunter]
16:30:10 [fielding]
tl, yes
16:30:14 [npdoty]
16:30:19 [npdoty]
ack ifette
16:30:20 [rigo]
ack ifette
16:30:43 [schunter]
16:30:47 [schunter]
ack rigo
16:30:52 [npdoty]
do we believe the full set of requirements/desires are listed in this Overview section?
16:31:29 [schunter]
Well-known URI and headers should be as simple as possible (but no simpler) ;-)
16:31:30 [tl]
No, absolutely not.
16:31:37 [aleecia]
I'm having trouble with the subject and object in the opening line. Something like (and maybe this is wrong) "Servers must abide by DNT regardless of the response" or something along these lines? I don't quite get who must do what.
16:31:48 [tedleung]
rigo: i'm unclear on what this feedback mechanism actually says.
16:31:57 [aleecia]
even "the response" is bad there, I want who is responding -- I'm not helping.
16:31:59 [npdoty]
tl, fielding, should we document all the desires in the Overview given that we're documenting some?
16:32:13 [schunter]
16:32:17 [schunter]
16:32:18 [schunter]
16:32:19 [aleecia]
But perhaps the problem I'm having becomes more clear, I want the subject and object nailed down
16:32:41 [ifette]
16:32:50 [aleecia]
5.2.1 Definition
16:32:51 [aleecia]
An origin server must provide a tracking status resource at the well-known identifier [RFC5785]
16:32:53 [aleecia]
(relative to the URI of that origin server) for obtaining information about the potential tracking behavior of resources provided by that origin server. A tracking status resource may be used for verification of DNT support, as described in section 5.2.4 Using the Tracking Status.
16:33:16 [aleecia]
A valid retrieval request (e.g., a GET in HTTP) on the well-known URI must result in either a successful response containing a machine-readable representation of the site-wide tracking status, as defined below, or a sequence of redirects that leads to such a representation. A user agent may consider failure to provide access to such a representation equivalent to the origin server not implementing this protocol. The representation might be cached, as described
16:33:17 [aleecia]
section 5.2.5 Caching.
16:33:18 [aleecia]
If an origin server contains multiple services that are controlled by distinct parties or that might have differing behavior or policies regarding tracking, then it may also provide a space of well-known resources for obtaining information about the potential tracking behavior of each specific service. This parallel tree of resources is called the tracking status resource space.
16:33:56 [aleecia]
New: When sending a request for the tracking status, a user agent should include any cookie data [COOKIES] (set prior to the request) that would be sent in a normal request to that origin server, since that data might be needed by the server to determine the current tracking status. For example, the cookie data might indicate a prior out-of-band decision by the user to opt-out or consent to tracking by that origin server.
16:33:56 [aleecia]
All requests on the tracking status resource space, including the site-wide tracking status resource, must not be tracked, irrespective of the presence, value, or absence of a DNT header field, cookies, or any other information in the request. In addition, all responses to those requests, including the responses to redirected tracking status requests, must not have Set-Cookie or Set-Cookie2 header fields and must not have content that initiates tracking beyond
16:33:57 [aleecia]
what was already present in the request. A user agent should ignore, or treat as an error, any Set-Cookie or Set-Cookie2 header field received in such a response.
16:34:15 [schunter]
16:34:18 [schunter]
16:34:24 [aleecia]
ack ifette
16:34:29 [tedleung]
fielding: mostly unchanged, added the final 2 paragraphs to cover what should be done with cookies
16:34:55 [tl]
16:35:38 [tl]
16:35:47 [tedleung]
ifette: if you have different policies for subspaces of the site, then what does the policy for the top level-space look like
16:36:04 [Zakim]
16:36:07 [aleecia]
So that's the section I didn't paste in:
16:36:12 [aleecia]
The tracking status resource space is defined by the following URI Template [URI-TEMPLATE]:
16:36:14 [aleecia]
where the value of pathinfo is equal to the path component [RFC3986] of a given reference to that origin server, excluding those references already within the above resource space. For example, a reference to
16:36:15 [rigo]
I wonder if we have to register the well-known location somewhere. For P3P we had to do that. I think we have a simpler mechanism now in RFC 5785
16:36:16 [aleecia]
16:36:17 [aleecia]
may have a corresponding tracking status resource identified by
16:36:17 [aleecia]
16:36:47 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
16:37:02 [schunter]
16:37:08 [tedleung]
fielding describes the search mechanism to find the correct policy
16:37:12 [aleecia]
16:37:51 [npdoty]
if my homepage (that is, "") has a different tracking status than all the pages underneath "/", what path should I use in JSON for the top-level tracking-status resource?
16:38:04 [npdoty]
(maybe that's related to your question, ifette)
16:38:23 [schunter]
16:38:27 [ifette]
so is this going to blow up the number of queries to the server?
16:38:27 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:38:35 [schunter]
ack schunter
16:38:52 [tedleung]
tl: there's the pathinfo in the well-known-uri, and that's binding, but if there is a more specific policy, then an additional request would be made
16:39:11 [tl]
Ian Fette: only when I don't know the TSR.
16:39:30 [fielding]
max two additional queries per 24 hours per UA that does active verification. It is not expected to be much.
16:39:31 [ifette]
and what if i track only a percentage of requests?
16:39:32 [tedleung]
schunter: i'm unclear on the precedence rules, and it seems complex
16:39:34 [tl]
And I can always make a deeplink request to start.
16:39:47 [ifette]
roy, 2 queries per resource on a page?
16:39:50 [aleecia]
16:39:58 [schunter]
16:40:00 [fielding]
tracking a percentage is still tracking
16:40:01 [schunter]
ack aleecia
16:40:03 [tl]
ifette: The TSR must cover your practices.
16:40:24 [ifette]
16:40:24 [npdoty]
ifette, you also have the optional Tk header if you the server want to give a more granular response
16:40:29 [tedleung]
aleecia: looks like we need some non-normative example text
16:40:35 [ifette]
npdoty, but the uri is required
16:40:39 [fielding]
I still have that action
16:40:51 [ifette]
and it doesn't seem clear to me how i would express 'i'm logging 1% of these queries'
16:41:07 [fielding]
ifette, right
16:41:08 [tl]
ifette: You'd say "I'm logging these queries."
16:41:19 [npdoty]
16:41:37 [ifette]
s/Ian Fette:/ian fette,/
16:41:54 [aleecia]
Roy, to be clear, I think you've just said you're writing a non-norm section for 5.2.1 with basic and advanced examples
16:42:34 [fielding]
aleecia, yes a use case and examples section
16:42:39 [ifette]
that's a problem...
16:42:39 [aleecia]
thank you
16:42:46 [tedleung]
tl: if there are 2 policies that apply to the same resource, that's conflicting, if there are 2 policies for different resources, that's the whole point
16:42:53 [ifette]
i have a requirement that i be able to publish a broad polciy and override it as necessary
16:43:02 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:43:15 [tedleung]
tl: for each resource there is at least 1 policy that describes it
16:43:17 [ifette]
16:43:18 [aleecia]
I think that's a non-unique use case that Ian has, to say the least
16:43:20 [schunter]
16:43:32 [fielding]
ifette, sounds like an interesting use case
16:44:09 [rigo]
q+ to note that I need the same expression-power in headers
16:44:17 [tedleung]
schunter: better documentation needed
16:44:19 [aleecia]
I'm going to guess Ian doesn't want to use headers due to cache issues, but that's a fair question
16:44:22 [npdoty]
ack ChrisPedigoOPA
16:44:59 [tedleung]
ChrisPedigoOPA: what's the functional reason for well-known-uri / response headers, since bad actors can still fake it.
16:45:02 [aleecia]
transparency, auditability, enforcement
16:45:16 [tedleung]
tl: if you lie, you are subject to legal measures such as deceptive practices
16:45:16 [rvaneijk]
chris: for me the reason is that it adds value in comparison to the existing opt-out system.
16:45:17 [fielding]
URI's don't lie, people do
16:45:34 [schunter]
16:45:55 [aleecia]
where "researchers" includes regulators and users
16:46:16 [npdoty]
I think tl is making the point that users and researchers could more easily get transparency into the tracking practice if we have a machine-readable tracking status
16:46:46 [tedleung]
schunter: the goal is for browsers or other tools to be able to see whether a site is stating compliance or not
16:46:57 [rigo]
the response header is crucial for the consent mechanism
16:47:30 [rigo]
because the scope of the declaration is different from a press release
16:47:31 [tedleung]
ChrisPedigoOPA: isn't english text at the bottom of the same thing?
16:47:33 [rvaneijk]
recital 66 gives an opening towards letting the browser express user consent...
16:47:40 [JC]
I feel we are trying to force 100% of sites do something that < .001% of users would ever use or care about
16:47:43 [aleecia]
16:47:44 [tedleung]
schunter: yes, but it's not helpful for a machine
16:47:45 [fielding]
The response is only necessary for one in a million users that wants active verification.
16:47:51 [rigo]
q- later
16:47:58 [Zakim]
16:48:09 [Zakim]
16:48:25 [npdoty]
fielding, there are multiple conflicting predictions about how many users will take advantage of the tracking response, and how their agents will use it
16:48:46 [tedleung]
ChrisPedigoOPA: do we need to make a statement about every page on a site?
16:48:53 [aleecia]
but we know if we don't support the data, 0 users and users agents will use it :-)
16:49:10 [schunter]
good point ;-)
16:49:14 [schunter]
16:49:16 [tedleung]
schunter: the current proposal allows you to make a statement for the whole site and additional statements for pieces of a site
16:49:22 [ifette]
q+ tl
16:49:31 [fielding]
npdoty, sure, but that one is mine
16:49:35 [tedleung]
tl: it also gives information such as "this site is a 3rd party"
16:49:44 [schunter]
16:50:08 [aleecia]
16:50:13 [npdoty]
ack ifette
16:50:15 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:51:23 [tedleung]
ifette: i thought that response header was going to return a policy code, which could then be tacked onto the well-known-uri to obtain more information on the policy
16:51:41 [aleecia]
so for Chris, it's been true for a long time that the value of a property and who owns it is filed at the county courthouse. It is different when it's online and accessible, able to be automated. Same idea here: having "we're DNT compliant" in a text footer is the same statement, perhaps, yet has totally different utility.
16:52:02 [npdoty]
I think it's very important for us to know if tracking statuses vary based on query string or body of the request or other information not in the path
16:52:15 [tedleung]
ifette: the current proposal drops query params, but google uses query params to figure out which site, it's hard to see how we could use this for
16:52:25 [KevinT1]
KevinT1 has joined #dnt
16:52:48 [rigo]
Ian, the path matching was a major hickup in P3P's policy reference file
16:53:13 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
16:53:16 [npdoty]
ifette, would Tk headers work for your cases? per response values?
16:53:37 [Zakim]
- +1.202.326.aajj
16:53:38 [tedleung]
tl: supply an unmet technical requirement and a fix
16:53:43 [fielding]
Google's tracking policy does not change per query. That's nonsense. Google tracks ALL requests on ALL resources, ALL of the time and only drops some records based on cookie data
16:53:49 [aleecia]
could we not talk over each other?
16:53:51 [tedleung]
ifette: I've done that, but it's been rejected
16:54:10 [JC]
We are spending too much time on this.
16:54:20 [rigo]
JC, this is critical
16:54:22 [hwest]
16:54:25 [aleecia]
actually, we do need to work through this JC
16:54:41 [tedleung]
argument over whose proposal is unworkable, but hard to scribe due to people talking over each other
16:54:56 [aleecia]
you've been doing an awesome job scribing, by the way
16:55:06 [rigo]
JC, because it is a predictable hickup that has haunted P3P for month
16:55:10 [fielding]
I can live with no response at all.
16:55:17 [Zakim]
16:55:28 [ifette]
i'll note there's also an open action on heather to come up with an alternate proposal
16:55:38 [aleecia]
good note, Ian
16:55:43 [ifette]
schunter, yes
16:55:44 [fielding]
16:55:46 [tedleung]
disucssion seems to be leading to a review of requirements/proposals leading up to the current
16:55:46 [rigo]
Roy, I can't, because for an agreement I need two matching declarations
16:55:56 [rigo]
16:56:12 [ifette]
ACTION: ifette to document difficulties around well known URIs for large sites and propose alternatives
16:56:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-193 - Document difficulties around well known URIs for large sites and propose alternatives [on Ian Fette - due 2012-05-09].
16:56:17 [rigo]
Matthias, what about the q?
16:56:22 [tedleung]
schunter: ifette to sent his requirement/use case to the list
16:56:31 [aleecia]
thanks, Ian
16:56:37 [schunter]
16:56:39 [npdoty]
tl, the action also includes proposing alternatives
16:56:41 [tedleung]
tl: suggesting that ifette send use case and a proposal
16:56:56 [tl]
16:57:02 [fielding]
Note that the policy only needs to express the worst case for path.
16:57:09 [npdoty]
ack rigo
16:57:09 [Zakim]
rigo, you wanted to note that I need the same expression-power in headers
16:57:57 [schunter]
Rigo: Header-only should be possible
16:58:09 [tedleung]
rigo: I have technical requirement too. uses date space, and the path matching doesn't work at all for our site. We need a header only solution.
16:58:11 [npdoty]
well, it's not the case that path matching doesn't work at all, just that we wouldn't get the efficiency of caching the status for a large group of resources, right?
16:58:32 [tl]
16:58:35 [tl]
16:58:40 [npdoty]
I don't think rigo is suggesting a header-only requirement, just that the header should be an option
16:58:50 [tedleung]
rigo: maybe it's the case that simple sites use the well known uri, and complicated sites use the header, but then the header must be as expressive as the well known uri
16:58:53 [fielding]
W3C has one and only on tracking policy.
16:59:33 [schunter]
I read rigo/ifettes requirement as being able to point to a URI from a response header. This would mean that at "/" you may permit a policy 'please look at the headers'.
16:59:33 [aleecia]
Could we please not talk over one another?
16:59:39 [tedleung]
tl: rigo what stops you from having a tracking status resource for every uri on
16:59:43 [schunter]
17:00:10 [npdoty]
I think Rigo is just giving the example that two resources in the same subdirectory might have different tracking statuses, so it wouldn't get any of the advantages of caching the status for a particular path
17:00:45 [aleecia]
Given we're not going to get through the full agenda on this call, I suggest we take the last agendum early on a future call, since jmayer is particularly interested in it yet has a conflict for the end of calls
17:00:47 [tedleung]
rigo: how do i do the matching, and where do the policies go, and how big is the file that has to hold the policies?
17:00:50 [schunter]
17:00:55 [aleecia]
ack hwest
17:00:59 [tedleung]
tl: how many policies are you really going to have?
17:01:01 [npdoty]
17:01:08 [aleecia]
17:01:10 [npdoty]
17:01:41 [rigo]
its not about how many policies but about how many resources have a policy and how to find which has which
17:01:42 [fielding]
and I still haven't solved Heather's issue regarding different policy per reference context
17:02:01 [tedleung]
schunter: people should send their comments to the list
17:02:04 [npdoty]
sorry fielding, what is "per reference context"?
17:02:22 [fielding]
first-party and third-party usage of the same resource URI
17:02:35 [schunter]
17:02:38 [fielding]
… where one tracks and the other does not
17:02:47 [tedleung]
schunter: we'l discuss this over the next 2 weeks, issues by issue, not calling for complete alternative proposals
17:02:54 [fielding]
… or has different policy links
17:03:14 [tl]
fielding: I thought we were waiting for Heather to make a proposal on that.
17:03:21 [npdoty]
17:04:22 [fielding]
tl, I don't segment my thinking that well … and we don't have time.
17:04:51 [hwest]
Yes, there's an open action for me to submit text on this - my concerns haven't changed (but am having phone trouble)
17:04:53 [tedleung]
tl: i thought we had finished with this in DC
17:05:05 [tedleung]
schunter: I'm not convinced that all issues have been resolved
17:05:12 [aleecia]
noted, Heather; thanks
17:05:39 [tedleung]
tl: maybe I don't understand the issue resolution process
17:06:00 [tedleung]
schunter: this is the first time this chapter has appeared in full in the spec
17:06:02 [schunter]
17:06:08 [aleecia]
if we had consensus, we wouldn't be having this disucssion
17:06:11 [fielding]
tl, regardless, I have to reflect consensus or lack of it in the draft even if we don't have replacement text yet
17:06:33 [Zakim]
17:06:58 [aleecia]
the group will need to sign off (or not) in a similar way on compliance; if you're frustrated here, you'll be frustrated there too
17:06:58 [Zakim]
17:06:59 [fielding]
yes, the cost of my freedom is that I don't get to say we are don. ;-)
17:07:05 [fielding]
17:07:17 [aleecia]
shall we take up the next section?
17:07:18 [Zakim]
17:07:39 [Zakim]
17:07:53 [tedleung]
ifette: now that we see the details issues become apparent, when maybe they weren't before
17:08:24 [tedleung]
schunter: if we ignore issues now, we'll just get formal objections later
17:08:33 [aleecia]
5.2.2 Representation
17:08:33 [aleecia]
The representation of a tracking status resource shall be provided in the "application/json" format [RFC4627] and must conform to the ABNF in section 5.2.6 Status-object ABNF. The following is an example tracking status representation that illustrates all of the fields defined by this specification, most of which are optional.
17:08:41 [tedleung]
schunter: i believe that we can get to consensus with some more work
17:09:48 [ifette]
17:09:54 [schunter]
17:09:55 [johnsimpson]
makes sense
17:09:58 [ifette]
sounds good to me
17:09:59 [ifette]
17:10:02 [npdoty]
can we get updates in a week so we can discuss again in 2 weeks?
17:11:00 [aleecia]
Are we going through the other sections?
17:11:06 [ifette]
17:11:14 [npdoty]
thx, I just mean getting email updates within a week so we have time to read and discuss over email before the next call
17:11:18 [aleecia]
17:11:18 [trackbot]
ISSUE-140 -- Do we need site-specific exceptions, i.e., concrete list of permitted thirdparties for a site? -- open
17:11:18 [trackbot]
17:11:23 [ifette]
Zakim, take up Agendum 4
17:11:23 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "ISSUE-140: Do we need explicit-explicit user-granted exceptions?" taken up [from aleecia]
17:11:40 [tl]
17:11:44 [aleecia]
close agendum 2
17:11:48 [aleecia]
close agendum 2
17:12:27 [tedleung]
schunter: we have agreement that it is okay for a site to ask for an exemption for all my 3rd parties
17:12:58 [Zakim]
17:13:09 [tedleung]
schunter: the question is, can the site ask for exemptions for 3rd parties on a party by party basis
17:13:13 [johnsimpson]
17:13:24 [Zakim]
17:13:26 [tedleung]
schunter: this complex, and poses complex UI challenges
17:13:27 [ifette]
arguments against also includes that it may change over time
17:13:28 [schunter]
17:13:33 [ifette]
requiring re-promoting
17:13:36 [ifette]
17:13:39 [ifette]
17:13:41 [schunter]
17:13:46 [Zakim]
17:13:54 [schunter]
ack tl
17:14:03 [ifette]
17:14:20 [ifette]
"i think it is a requirement that explicit-explicit exceptions not be implemented"
17:14:24 [tedleung]
tl: i think is a requirement that explicit/explicit exceptions be implemented
17:14:30 [npdoty]
arguments for also includes sites that want to increase opt in by making limited requests
17:14:31 [Zakim]
17:14:35 [schunter]
tl: explicit/explicit enables competition on privacy
17:14:37 [schunter]
17:14:43 [rigo]
17:14:47 [tedleung]
tl: this allows sites to compete on privacy, and gives full visibility to users
17:14:51 [rigo]
ack ifette
17:15:08 [schunter]
ack rigo
17:15:09 [tedleung]
ifette: I think it is a requirement that explicit/explicit *not* be implemented
17:15:17 [ifette]
17:15:18 [fielding]
17:15:23 [npdoty]
and I think it satisfies a data minimization principle
17:15:29 [tedleung]
ifette: points have been made in the e-mail thread
17:16:06 [schunter]
rigo: Is this API meant recursive or only direct sub-third parties are named/used/mentioned by this API?
17:16:08 [schunter]
17:16:09 [schunter]
17:16:17 [tedleung]
rigo: is your concern "direct" 3rd parties or "brokered/marketplaced" sub providers?
17:17:03 [tedleung]
ifette: I'm including the sub provider issue, and I believe that exceptions should transitively descend from a broker to the sub providers
17:17:09 [alex]
17:17:14 [schunter]
ian would be OK if 1st level only is included in the API and this basically grantes a "*" exception for all corresponding sub-sub providers below this 3rd party.
17:17:20 [Zakim]
- +1.202.326.aaff
17:17:25 [schunter]
17:17:26 [alex]
17:17:30 [rigo]
ack ifette
17:17:32 [alex]
17:17:37 [npdoty]
17:17:39 [schunter]
ack fielding
17:17:39 [ifette]
17:17:40 [tedleung]
ifette: i still think that a transitive model is too complex, but would be better than explicit/explicit
17:17:48 [Zakim]
17:18:02 [schunter]
17:18:12 [schunter]
17:18:23 [ifette]
17:18:28 [tl]
17:18:30 [Zakim]
+ +385221aaoo
17:18:40 [npdoty]
ack aleecia
17:18:40 [tedleung]
fielding: I tend to agree with ifette. I'd prefer to remove the entire exception framework, and rely on site developed mechanisms as the only means of escaping dnt
17:18:40 [alex]
zakim, unmute me
17:18:42 [Zakim]
alex should no longer be muted
17:18:42 [npdoty]
ack alex
17:18:44 [rigo]
-1 on having no exception mechanism
17:18:44 [ifette]
i would support roy's proposal
17:18:48 [tedleung]
schunter: tjat
17:18:51 [schunter]
fielding: One alternative would be to drop the complete exception framework and do exception handling from the spec.
17:18:59 [tedleung]
schunter: that's quite a radical proposal
17:19:01 [schunter]
17:19:20 [ifette]
+1 to alex as well
17:19:32 [ifette]
you can list out your third parties outside of the exception mechanism
17:19:53 [fielding]
I mean, continue sending DNT:1 to everyone with that preference and let each site develop their own consent mechanisms with cookies.
17:19:54 [tedleung]
alex: there are ways for sites to compete on privacy besides at the point of asking for an exception
17:19:57 [schunter]
concern: Enumerating third parties vs. exempting them.
17:20:22 [rigo]
* is mainly a blank check that you sign and can't express consent as the content of the agreement is not determined
17:20:27 [schunter]
also: before loading (via DNT) vs. after loading (vs browser logging)
17:20:34 [aleecia]
knowing number of 3rd parties on a site doesn't tell me how deep the rabbit hole goes, too
17:20:40 [tedleung]
tl: but who knows how big "*" is, since it was claimed that it is impossible to determine the number of 3rd parties on a site.
17:20:42 [schunter]
17:20:57 [aleecia]
Rigo's point on consent not being valid in EU is non-trivial
17:21:15 [aleecia]
yet how to make things work with the current auction model is also non-trivial
17:21:28 [aleecia]
17:21:32 [rigo]
17:21:34 [Chris_IAB]
ok with me
17:21:35 [npdoty]
+1 for pushing agenda item
17:21:36 [johnsimpson]
17:21:38 [rigo]
17:21:39 [tedleung]
schunter: propose that we move last item to next call since jmayer is now absent
17:21:40 [schunter]
ack npdoty
17:21:43 [aleecia]
17:22:08 [aleecia]
close agendum 5
17:22:19 [aleecia]
close agendum 3
17:22:21 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:22:44 [ifette]
17:22:57 [schunter]
17:23:12 [tedleung]
npdoty: the user agent doesn't have to display the full list of 3rd parties all the time, even if that list is returned by the JS API
17:23:58 [ifette]
17:23:58 [trackbot]
ISSUE-111 -- Signaling state/existence of site-specific exceptions -- postponed
17:23:58 [trackbot]
17:24:27 [schunter]
17:24:29 [schunter]
17:24:32 [schunter]
ack tl
17:24:43 [tedleung]
npdoty: perhaps additional bits in the headers might help - sorry lost the details, mental buffer overflow
17:25:16 [alex]
17:25:17 [schunter]
17:25:20 [npdoty]
tedleung, sorry, that was a long piece of text I was giving
17:25:22 [schunter]
ack rigo
17:26:23 [tedleung]
rigo: a 1st party selects 3rd parties based on reputation and performance, so I am not concerned about taking into account the sub providers
17:26:24 [schunter]
rigo: Proposal to change spec to only allow sub-third parties (at direct / 1st level). This exception then automatically inherits to all subsub, subsubsub, ... providers used by this 1st level third party.
17:26:29 [ksmith]
if I remember right - a flag of 2 tells you that some 3rd parties may have dnt:0 and others dnt:1. Knowing that you are in a state of partial exception is useless unless you know which parties are allowed - which is the problem. And even then even if you knew, it gets very expensive to support partial states
17:26:33 [npdoty]
npdoty: if the concern was visibility for the publishers to the state of their third parties, we absolutely should take that up (as in 111) and that a separate DNT header value might be what's needed (dnt:2 or 10/11, as we discussed in DC)
17:26:50 [npdoty]
ksmith, we can define DNT:2 or 10 or 11 as we want
17:27:07 [npdoty]
what if DNT:10 means "you have a site-wide exception for all your third parties"? would that work for you?
17:27:16 [schunter]
I postponed this issue-111 to a later point:
17:27:16 [tedleung]
rigo: if we have web wide exceptions, then we are already into a model where not all 3rd parties on a site are treated equally
17:27:17 [schunter]
17:27:22 [schunter]
ack ifette
17:27:24 [ksmith]
all or nothing works, its the partial that gets hard
17:28:04 [npdoty]
so it would help your sites if you the first party could receive a DNT:10 which is an all-or-nothing request? ksmith
17:28:17 [tedleung]
ifette: 1st parties don't rely on web-wide exceptions to cover the 1st party's 3rd parties
17:28:48 [ksmith]
agree with Ian - web wide exceptions will usually be for 3rd parties that are providing a service directly to the user - not to the 1st party
17:29:03 [ksmith]
or likely both
17:29:08 [schunter]
17:29:12 [Chris_IAB]
agree with Ian: BIG +1 on this comment
17:29:26 [tl]
I am sad to see that Ian doesn't want to compete on Ux.
17:29:28 [npdoty]
"are all of my third parties covered or not?" -- that's why I'm suggesting a * option and a DNT header to signal a site-wide exception
17:29:39 [schunter]
new issue: compliant behavior of user agents.
17:29:40 [tedleung]
ifette: not going to rehash the UI issue, but does not thing that we should be doing translation of user intent in the UI.
17:29:55 [schunter]
17:29:59 [aleecia]
Ted thanks for scribing this call
17:30:02 [tedleung]
ifette: we should be processing user preferences directly
17:30:05 [rigo]
ack schunter
17:30:36 [ifette]
if and only if these are transitive
17:30:46 [tl]
Which they are currently not.
17:30:47 [tedleung]
schunter: rigo thinks that permitting the first level of 3rd parties is useful in the EU context
17:30:51 [ifette]
17:30:59 [tl]
Because this is the first that we have heard of transitivity.
17:31:11 [tl]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:31:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fielding, AClearwater, eberkower, vincent, Joanne, vinay, ??P20, justin, bilcorry (muted), tedleung, +40.72.321.aahh, ??P78, enewland, +1.202.744.aaii, Chapell,
17:31:15 [Zakim]
... ??P86, Lia (muted), +1.202.643.aall, KevinT, dsriedel (muted), johnsimpson, ??P7, tl, +385221aaoo, aleecia, schunter, alex, rvaneijk, rigo.a, npdoty, ifette, efelten, alex.a
17:31:21 [tedleung]
schunter: we need some more discussion on this
17:32:13 [Zakim]
17:32:41 [aleecia]
thanks, Ian
17:32:45 [tedleung]
sorry 2mins past hard stop...
17:32:46 [ifette]
ACTION: ifette to write up a proposal for transitive third party exceptions
17:32:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-194 - Write up a proposal for transitive third party exceptions [on Ian Fette - due 2012-05-09].
17:32:53 [Zakim]
17:32:54 [Zakim]
- +385221aaoo
17:32:57 [Zakim]
17:33:02 [tedleung]
tedleung has left #dnt
17:33:09 [Zakim]
17:33:11 [Zakim]
- +1.202.744.aaii
17:33:17 [Zakim]
17:33:18 [Zakim]
17:33:19 [ifette]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:33:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ifette
17:33:21 [Zakim]
17:33:23 [ifette]
Zakim, list participants
17:33:24 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aleecia, alex, rvaneijk, schunter, npdoty, rigo, +1.202.835.aaaa, +1.202.326.aabb, efelten, ifette, Marc, fielding, +1.617.733.aacc,
17:33:24 [Zakim]
... +1.646.654.aadd, +1.916.641.aaee, AClearwater, eberkower, vinay, Joanne, tl, +1.202.326.aaff, vincent, justin, bilcorry, +1.206.664.aagg, +40.72.321.aahh, tedleung,
17:33:25 [npdoty]
cheers to tedleung for scribing a challenging call
17:33:28 [Zakim]
... +1.202.744.aaii, Chapell, +1.202.326.aajj, +1.202.587.aakk, +1.202.643.aall, [Microsoft], KevinT, +49.721.91.aamm, Lia, johnsimpson, dsriedel, jmayer, +1.609.981.aann,
17:33:28 [Zakim]
... enewland, +385221aaoo
17:33:31 [ifette]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:33:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ifette
17:33:32 [aleecia]
+1 to that
17:33:32 [Zakim]
17:33:35 [ifette]
RRSAgent, make logs member
17:33:36 [ksmith]
ksmith has left #DNT
17:33:36 [Zakim]
17:33:38 [Zakim]
17:33:40 [Zakim]
17:33:41 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:33:42 [Zakim]
- +1.202.643.aall
17:33:45 [Zakim]
17:33:46 [Zakim]
17:33:48 [Zakim]
17:33:51 [Zakim]
17:33:53 [Zakim]
17:33:54 [Zakim]
17:33:56 [Zakim]
17:33:57 [npdoty]
ifette, is there a reason you're asking to make logs member? I've been making them public
17:33:58 [Zakim]
17:34:00 [Zakim]
17:34:02 [Zakim]
17:34:04 [Zakim]
17:34:06 [Zakim]
17:34:09 [Zakim]
17:34:10 [Zakim]
17:34:13 [Zakim]
17:34:14 [Zakim]
- +40.72.321.aahh
17:34:21 [npdoty]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference
17:34:24 [Zakim]
17:34:24 [npdoty]
Chair: schunter
17:34:33 [npdoty]
regrets+ ninja
17:34:37 [npdoty]
regrets+ wileys
17:34:54 [AClearwater]
AClearwater has left #dnt
17:36:27 [Zakim]
17:41:28 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, ifette, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
17:41:29 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:41:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were aleecia, alex, rvaneijk, schunter, npdoty, rigo, +1.202.835.aaaa, +1.202.326.aabb, efelten, ifette, Marc, fielding, +1.617.733.aacc, +1.646.654.aadd,
17:41:29 [Zakim]
... +1.916.641.aaee, AClearwater, eberkower, vinay, Joanne, tl, +1.202.326.aaff, vincent, justin, bilcorry, +1.206.664.aagg, +40.72.321.aahh, tedleung, +1.202.744.aaii, Chapell,
17:41:31 [Zakim]
... +1.202.326.aajj, +1.202.587.aakk, +1.202.643.aall, [Microsoft], KevinT, +49.721.91.aamm, Lia, johnsimpson, dsriedel, jmayer, +1.609.981.aann, enewland, +385221aaoo
17:42:50 [npdoty]
Zakim, bye
17:42:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt
17:42:59 [npdoty]
trackbot, bye
17:42:59 [trackbot]
trackbot has left #dnt
17:43:03 [npdoty]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:43:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:43:08 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
17:43:08 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
17:43:08 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ifette to document difficulties around well known URIs for large sites and propose alternatives [1]
17:43:08 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:43:08 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ifette to write up a proposal for transitive third party exceptions [2]
17:43:08 [RRSAgent]
recorded in