15:44:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:44:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/18-dnt-irc
15:44:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:44:44 <aleecia> Zakim, this will be dnt
15:44:44 <Zakim> ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
15:44:55 <aleecia> chair: schunter
15:45:06 <aleecia> rrsagent, make logs public
15:45:09 <aleecia> agenda?
15:46:03 <aleecia> agenda+ Selection of scribe
15:46:16 <aleecia> agenda+ Quick scan of weeks & conflicts for the next Face2Face in Europe
15:46:28 <aleecia> agenda+ Newly published minutes since the last call?
15:47:03 <aleecia> agenda+ Review of overdue action items:  https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue
15:47:18 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:47:29 <aleecia> agenda+ Status of OPEN  ISSUES and assignment of Actions:   http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2
15:48:39 <aleecia> agenda+ Status and actions on user/granted exceptions (a, updated proposal; b, origin semantics, c missing pieces)
15:49:03 <aleecia> agenda+ User agent behavior [ISSUE-144]
15:49:19 <aleecia> agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
15:51:05 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:51:12 <Zakim> +aleecia
15:51:17 <James> James has joined #dnt
15:51:29 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:51:54 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:55:02 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:55:22 <suegl> suegl has joined #dnt
15:55:31 <mischat> mischat has joined #dnt
15:55:49 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:56:13 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:56:26 <aleecia> good morning!
15:56:34 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:56:39 <suegl> zakim, [Microsoft] has suegl
15:56:39 <Zakim> +suegl; got it
15:56:41 <rvaneijk> Hi, good morning!
15:56:52 <samsilberman> samsilberman has joined #dnt
15:56:59 <aleecia> Thanks, Sue, I was just looking up the syntax on that for you and here you're all set. 
15:57:12 <aleecia> Good morning, Rob!
15:57:15 <Zakim> +fielding
15:57:18 <BrendanIAB> BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
15:57:48 <Zakim> +dwainberg
15:57:50 <Zakim> +samsilberman
15:57:54 <suegl> good morning
15:58:08 <Zakim> +??P17
15:58:12 <suegl> and thanks, Aleecia
15:58:25 <BrendanIAB> ??P17 is probably BrendanIAB
15:58:27 <aleecia> Indeed. Go, Zakim
15:58:30 <aleecia> thanks!
15:58:38 <alex> alex has joined #dnt
15:58:40 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P17 is probably BrendanIAB 
15:58:40 <Zakim> +BrendanIAB?; got it
15:58:41 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aaaa
15:58:55 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
15:58:57 <eberkower> 646 654 is eberkower
15:59:02 <npdoty> Zakim, aaaa is eberkower 
15:59:02 <Zakim> + +1.212.380.aabb
15:59:02 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:59:07 <eberkower> thanks!
15:59:18 <Zakim> + +1.813.366.aacc
15:59:22 <fielding> zakim, who is making noise?
15:59:24 <ifette> ifette has joined #dnt
15:59:26 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:59:33 <Zakim> fielding, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (12%)
15:59:43 <Zakim> + +1.650.214.aadd
15:59:43 <Chris_IAB> that's me- 212
15:59:47 <alex> Zakim, aacc is alex
15:59:47 <Zakim> +alex; got it
15:59:50 <ifette> Zakim, aadd is ifette
15:59:50 <Zakim> +ifette; got it
15:59:51 <Zakim> +Joanne
15:59:53 <npdoty> Zakim, aabb is Chris_IAB 
15:59:53 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB; got it
15:59:53 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:00:13 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
16:00:16 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
16:00:17 <Zakim> + +1.925.253.aaee
16:00:17 <Zakim> +KevinT
16:01:01 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
16:01:04 <Zakim> +jchester2
16:01:08 <npdoty> Zakim, aaee is James 
16:01:08 <Zakim> +James; got it
16:01:43 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:02:00 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aaff
16:02:11 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:02:11 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:02:14 <vinay> zakim, aaff is vinay
16:02:14 <Zakim> +vinay; got it
16:02:31 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:02:34 <fielding> zakim, mute [Microsoft]
16:02:34 <Zakim> [Microsoft] should now be muted
16:03:01 <fielding> zakim, unmute [Microsoft]
16:03:01 <Zakim> [Microsoft] should no longer be muted
16:03:04 <aleecia> Thanks, Nick
16:03:10 <Zakim> + +49.172.147.aagg
16:03:14 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aahh
16:03:16 <aleecia> agenda?
16:03:17 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:03:18 <npdoty> Zakim, aagg is schunter 
16:03:20 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:03:30 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:03:32 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:03:34 <Zakim> + +1.919.349.aaii
16:03:38 <Zakim> +??P7
16:03:42 <bilcorry> bilcorry has joined #dnt
16:03:45 <aleecia> scribe is aleecia
16:03:46 <AnnaLong> AnnaLong has joined #dnt
16:03:55 <Zakim> +justin
16:04:01 <vincent> zakim, ??P7 is vincent
16:04:01 <ifette> q+
16:04:09 <Zakim> +vincent; got it
16:04:12 <fielding> The IETF meeting is in two weeks
16:04:13 <ifette> q+ to ask a complete draft of what?
16:04:16 <aleecia> schunter: today would like complete version in two weeks, review actions and get pieces in text to have a complete draft to review as a group
16:04:21 <bilcorry> Zakim, mute me
16:04:22 <ifette> q-
16:04:25 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:04:27 <Zakim> + +1.408.223.aajj
16:04:41 <schunter> q?
16:04:43 <ifette> q-
16:04:45 <Zakim> sorry, bilcorry, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:05:03 <aleecia> schunter: any comments on agenda?
16:05:13 <dsinger> zakim, code?
16:05:16 <bilcorry> Zakim, aajj is me
16:05:18 <aleecia> close agendum 1
16:05:21 <aleecia> agenda?
16:05:22 <schunter> q?
16:05:24 <bilcorry> Zakim, mute me
16:05:32 <aleecia> schunter, no comments on agenda
16:05:35 <Zakim> + +31.65.141.aakk
16:05:39 <Zakim> the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), dsinger
16:05:41 <Zakim> +bilcorry; got it
16:05:41 <rvaneijk> zakim, aakk  is rvaneijk
16:05:42 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:05:45 <aleecia> agenda+
16:06:03 <tedleung> tedleung has joined #dnt
16:06:12 <Zakim> bilcorry should now be muted
16:06:19 <aleecia> schunter: would like to narrow down dates for f2f
16:06:24 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:06:25 <ifette> Matthias, I need to drop Zurich from our list of offers. We can still offer London but our Zurich room will not accommodate enough people
16:06:32 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.aa]
16:06:32 <aleecia> schunter: would like quick note of conflicts
16:06:38 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.aa] is me
16:06:40 <aleecia> Ian - noted, thank you
16:06:46 <Zakim> +??P51
16:06:51 <WileyS> Last week of September is looking best (based on current date).  Second week of October is IAPP Privacy Academy in San Jose
16:06:55 <dsinger> zakim, ??P51 is me
16:06:59 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:07:02 <susanisrael> 917.934.xxyy is susanisrael
16:07:03 <Zakim> + +1.310.392.aall
16:07:05 <Zakim> + +1.206.369.aamm
16:07:07 <aleecia> schunter: please put conflicts for sept and oct into IRC
16:07:13 <aleecia> …sept 3?
16:07:14 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:07:14 <ifette> Sept 3 is right during/after IETF
16:07:15 <ifette> no go
16:07:19 <tedleung> zakim aamm is tedleung
16:07:25 <npdoty> Zakim, aahh is susanisrael 
16:07:27 <aleecia> …sept 10?
16:07:27 <johnsimpson> zakim, aall is johnsimpson
16:07:28 <justin> Sep 10 no
16:07:29 <rvaneijk> 10-12 Berlin meeting
16:07:29 <Chris_IAB> Sept 25/26th look pretty good from an industry POV (shows that I know of)
16:07:32 <Zakim> +susanisrael; got it
16:07:37 <aleecia> …sept 17?
16:07:39 <johnsimpson> who is on call?
16:07:44 <rvaneijk> sept
16:07:45 <Zakim> +johnsimpson; got it
16:07:46 <WileyS> We require 8 weeks notice - so only Sept 19th forward can be considered
16:07:51 <rvaneijk> yes conflict
16:07:53 <johnsimpson> zakim, who is on call?
16:07:59 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
16:08:01 <tedleung> i cave conflicts the week of 9/10 and 9/24
16:08:02 <dwainberg> sept 25/26 are not ok
16:08:05 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, johnsimpson.
16:08:13 <susanisrael> sept 17 and following week not good for me but that's personal.  October much better
16:08:17 <WileyS> Agree with Chris_IAB - last week of Sep is looking best based on other activities
16:08:19 <Chris_IAB> There is an industry event on Sept 20th in NYC that many will attend
16:08:21 <vincent> 25/26 not ok for me as well
16:08:31 <jchester2> Oct 23-24 is DPA conference in Uruguay, http://www.privacyconference2012.org/english/home/
16:08:33 <fielding> ifette, IETF is two weeks from now (Jul 29-Aug3)
16:08:36 <Zakim> +jmayer
16:08:37 <ifette> week of the 25th sept is best
16:08:44 <ifette> roy sorry, was mixing august and september :)
16:08:45 <justin> Agree with ifette
16:08:50 <WileyS> Week of Oct 1st then?
16:08:52 <JC> +1
16:08:57 <aleecia> …week of sept 24 seems best so far
16:08:59 <tedleung> week of oct 1 works
16:09:06 <justin> I could live with first week of October too.
16:09:11 <dsinger> we're looking for 'major' conflicts (common ones)
16:09:11 <aleecia> Nick, conflicts then?
16:09:17 <susanisrael> there is a jewish holiday that week
16:09:19 <vincent> same for me :)
16:09:23 <alex> +1 Oct 1
16:09:24 <susanisrael> yom kippur
16:09:32 <aleecia> quite, thanks
16:09:45 <aleecia> …week of Oct 1?
16:09:47 <justin> Do we have a host for first week of October?
16:09:48 <ifette> It conflicts with Oktoberfest
16:09:56 <vincent> lol
16:09:56 <justin> Define "conflicts" :)
16:09:58 <WileyS> LOL
16:10:00 <ifette> (the first week of october)
16:10:02 <Chris_IAB> I like Ian's conflict!
16:10:06 <Chris_IAB> let's have it there!
16:10:13 <johnsimpson> what city are we considering?
16:10:13 <Chris_IAB> W3C tent?
16:10:14 <aleecia> Matthias, once we have a week we want to meet we will try to find a host perhaps. Sounds like a suggestion to have the meeting then :-)
16:10:15 <justin> That's a feature, not a bug.
16:10:15 <ifette> Our munich office is to big enough :(
16:10:21 <ifette> not big enough rather
16:10:39 <aleecia> First week of oct is OTA forum
16:10:46 <Chris_IAB> October 1st and 2nd are out-- BIG event in NYC
16:10:49 <aleecia> Matthias, second week of october?
16:10:49 <WileyS> 2nd week of Oct conflicts with multiple events - OTA and IAPP
16:10:51 <tedleung> can't do 2nd week of oct
16:10:59 <Chris_IAB> Advertising week in NYC is first week of October
16:11:02 <justin> There's an Amsterdam privacy conference second week of October too.
16:11:04 <WileyS> Yes - I'll be speaking - with Justin Brookman
16:11:10 <dsinger> third week of october has me at mpeg shanghai (oct 15th)
16:11:12 <aleecia> IIAP even week of oct 8th
16:11:19 <rvaneijk> why not putting up a doodle?
16:11:19 <tedleung> i can do oct 15
16:11:27 <Chris_IAB> Monday October 8th is a US Holiday
16:11:31 <aleecia> schunter, oct 15?
16:11:34 <schunter> Oct 1
16:11:35 <WileyS> Feels like its either the last week of Sept or 1st week of Oct
16:11:40 <schunter> TPAC: Oct 29ff
16:11:49 <WileyS> Let's not meet over Halloween again...
16:11:50 <tedleung> if we are into oct, i would vote for TPAC
16:11:53 <npdoty> we may need a Doodle as well, but hearing maybe towards the end of the week on the last week of September
16:11:58 <aleecia> schunter, can do last week of oct or last week of sept 
16:12:03 <Chris_IAB> First week of October is Advertising Week in NYC... for industry folks and others
16:12:10 <aleecia> so we should look for rooms at that time
16:12:11 <Lia> Lia has joined #dnt
16:12:14 <dwainberg> my vote would be week of Oct 1
16:12:15 <johnsimpson> seems like we're getting very late in year...
16:12:27 <schunter> ok. I will send a doodle for last week of september, oct1, oct 29.
16:12:28 <justin> Second vote for week of Oct 1.
16:12:29 <Zakim> + +1.206.658.aann
16:12:37 <aleecia> schunter: doodle pool for last week sept, week starting oct 1, week starting oct 29
16:12:41 <Chris_IAB> is the Jewish holiday the entire week?
16:12:55 <Chris_IAB> except people can't travel before
16:13:00 <aleecia> wileys: is the holiday the whole week?
16:13:00 <johnsimpson> yom kippur is Sept 25 and 26 I think
16:13:18 <ifette> We can host that last week in september, but cannot host the first week of october, i don't have any large rooms open
16:13:19 <vincent> it's just the 26
16:13:19 <aleecia> ?: would be 24th - 26th, and there's also travel. 
16:13:26 <schunter> ok.
16:13:28 <aleecia> thank you, Ian
16:13:28 <dsinger> google: Yom Kippur begins in the evening of Tuesday, September 25, 2012, and ends in the evening of Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
16:13:45 <Chris_IAB> can we do later in the week of Oct 1st?
16:13:48 <aleecia> schunter, now looking for Oct 1 or Oct 29th
16:14:12 <johnsimpson> so nothing woks in Seopt.?
16:14:16 <npdoty> Chris_IAB, how late in the week of Oct 1st avoids the advertising event conflicts?
16:14:17 <ifette> it can't be in munich the first week of october, hotels are impossible
16:14:18 <aleecia> schunter, we'll look for hosts for those dates
16:14:21 <dsinger> I think we should meet separately from and before TPAC, and have only a short cross-group session at TPAC
16:14:24 <fielding> is it either or both?
16:14:26 <ifette> if munich was a serious suggestion
16:14:45 <justin> Would strongly prefer week of Nov 5 to Halloween week.
16:14:47 <Chris_IAB> those with kids, Halloween in the US is on Wed, October 31st
16:15:11 <aleecia> sounds like week of oct 1 will be best
16:15:14 <justin> I cannot make that week at all.
16:15:15 <Chris_IAB> for people with kids... I'm personally ok
16:15:28 <Chris_IAB> it's also ad:tech NYC
16:15:30 <WileyS> Justin - are you saying you can't make the 1st week of Oct?
16:15:33 <tedleung> i already have to go to tpac
16:15:35 <aleecia> Ian you weren't able to find a room week of oct 1?
16:15:35 <Chris_IAB> first week of November
16:15:41 <justin> I can do Oct 1; I cannot do week of 29th.
16:15:42 <dsinger> halloween is already TPAC, with many of us busy with other groups as well
16:15:44 <tedleung> so 2 trips to europe in oct is kind of killer
16:15:47 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
16:15:51 <WileyS> Justin - thanks
16:15:53 <Chris_IAB> first week of November is ad:tech NYC
16:16:00 <WileyS> Appears Oct 1st is best week - now to find a host location
16:16:01 <Chris_IAB> and NYC Marathon
16:16:11 <aleecia> no matter what we pick, someone is going to be unhappy
16:16:13 <ifette> We can probably host in London a meeting starting 10/30
16:16:16 <justin> Sure.
16:16:18 <ifette> (tues)
16:16:21 <dsinger> right, I will be (AC Rep and other things)
16:16:33 <adrianba> TPAC 2012 -> http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/
16:16:40 <aleecia> matthias: we could do TPAC?
16:17:00 <aleecia> dsinger: we would need a lot of progress before then, and space is an issue, but we could do that
16:17:02 <Zakim> + +1.202.326.aaoo
16:17:03 <Chris_IAB> November 5th is the IAB Ad Ops Event
16:17:06 <npdoty> w3c has considered the possibility of reserving an additional large room for us to meet, if we decide that's what we want
16:17:07 <efelten> Zakim, aaoo is me
16:17:07 <Zakim> +efelten; got it
16:17:11 <aleecia> matthias: will do doodle poll from here
16:17:21 <aleecia> close agendum 1
16:17:29 <aleecia> close agendum 2
16:17:38 <aleecia> matthias: where are we on minutes?
16:17:40 <Chris_IAB> sorry, what are the proposed F2F locations in Europe?
16:18:17 <aleecia> npdoty: behind on minutes, started cleaning up minutes from f2f and that's overdue. some earlier minutes are done but not published. will finish by end of the week and send email.
16:18:28 <aleecia> close agendum 3
16:18:45 <vincent> Chris_IAB, london if I understand correctly
16:18:54 <aleecia> please
16:18:56 <Chris_IAB> vincent, thanks
16:19:00 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue
16:19:17 <aleecia> schunter, starting with action-169, rigo?
16:19:37 <aleecia> …not on the call. 
16:19:38 <npdoty> Chris_IAB, vincent, we've heard from possible hosting options in London, Athens, Brussels, Frankfurt, Lyon
16:20:02 <vincent> thx npdoty 
16:20:03 <aleecia> … sending a reminder to Rigo is in order; Nick will follow up
16:20:06 <dsinger> he has text in email; is it still open?
16:20:12 <aleecia> … action-186, Justin
16:20:28 <Chris_IAB> loving Athens ;)
16:20:31 <aleecia> justin, it's in the editors' strawman draft
16:20:43 <aleecia> designer, action-169 is done and needs to be integrated
16:20:47 <Chris_IAB> I hear they need our money too ;)
16:20:50 <aleecia> schunter, we should review first
16:21:10 <aleecia> … text from Rigo is for TPE or compliance?
16:21:23 <aleecia> (we can figure this out offline)
16:21:43 <npdoty> sounds like it's for the compliance doc and we should have Rigo follow up with Justin and Heather
16:21:43 <aleecia> dsinger, looks like compliance
16:21:49 <justin> I can incorporate this into the definition of party.
16:21:54 <aleecia> thanks, Justin
16:22:17 <aleecia> schunter, justin's action  - also in strawman draft - closing
16:22:24 <WileyS> +q
16:22:25 <aleecia> schunter, action-214
16:22:29 <npdoty> q?
16:22:56 <WileyS> Hello?
16:23:13 <aleecia> schunter, action-213 jonathan?
16:23:15 <schunter> q?
16:23:34 <justin> Fine with me.
16:23:41 <justin> I'll move them to pending.
16:23:45 <WileyS> Thank you Justin
16:23:53 <aleecia> swiley, can we move justin's actions to pending review rather than closed?
16:23:54 <WileyS> q-
16:23:59 <fielding> we don't need to discuss an action -- discussing the text is different
16:24:01 <aleecia> schunter, good
16:24:11 <npdoty> we've been using the phrasing "closing" for an action, but that wouldn't close an Issue, and we commonly move the actions to "pending review" anyway
16:24:24 <aleecia> nick, will be in touch with aleecia on infrastructure which is done
16:24:28 <patrick_google> patrick_google has joined #dnt
16:24:44 <aleecia> jmayer, please leave action-213 open, not finished
16:24:48 <rvaneijk> Action-215: I have the pictures from Rigo and will send them to npdoty
16:24:48 <trackbot> ACTION-215 Send Nick photos from whiteboard to include in minutes notes added
16:24:52 <susanisrael> i have proposed language for first party/third party/affiliates that I will send soon to justin
16:24:54 <aleecia> schunter, action-215
16:25:05 <aleecia> nick, will follow up off-line to get photos for minutes
16:25:13 <schunter> thx
16:25:16 <jmayer> Apparently this is an action I'm supposed to work on with Ian and Roy...?
16:25:20 <aleecia> If you have photos, please send to Nick
16:25:22 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:25:38 <aleecia> schunter, action-216, is brooks on the call?
16:25:49 <fielding> jmayer, I have no idea what that is about
16:25:52 <aleecia> nick, will send reminder to Brooks
16:26:21 <jchester2> attack on DNT in US publication, FYI:  http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/238373-online-privacy-do-we-need-do-not-track
16:26:28 <aleecia> schunter, action-220 dsinger wrote a proposal; should review
16:26:39 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:26:47 <suegl> zakim, [Microsoft] has suegl
16:26:47 <Zakim> +suegl; got it
16:26:51 <jmayer> Is it maybe for the Compliance treatment of unintentionally received data?
16:26:55 <aleecia> schunter, action-223 not done, leaving open
16:27:16 <npdoty> hwest, action-225 is due today, any updates?
16:27:30 <justin> If you guys want to fix the definition of collection/tracking to accomodate this, be my guest.  Otherwise, I am tackling that on Friday.
16:27:33 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2
16:27:34 <aleecia> schunter, looking at open issues
16:27:42 <aleecia> agenda?
16:27:51 <aleecia> close agendum 4
16:27:57 <npdoty> jmayer, yes, I believe that's the context for that action
16:28:11 <WileyS> yes
16:28:16 <aleecia> schunter, change issue-84 to pending review? yes.
16:28:21 <WileyS> No
16:28:23 <schunter> q?
16:28:25 <WileyS> Saying Yes to the move
16:29:00 <dsinger> issue-136?
16:29:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-136 -- Resolve dependencies of the TPE on the compliance specification -- open
16:29:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/136
16:29:00 <jmayer> There's language about that in the EFF/Mozilla/Stanford proposal.  I'll send it to the list.
16:29:05 <aleecia> schunter, issue-136, editors' issue on dependencies 
16:29:54 <aleecia> schunter, issue-137, should be service provider flag but rest is not visible in communication. Remembered correctly?
16:30:13 <aleecia> … suggest creating an action to get service provider flag sorted out, any input?
16:30:16 <npdoty> q+
16:30:28 <schunter> ack npdoty
16:30:48 <aleecia> npdoty, seems this was an open area of disagreement. Tom and Ed suggested user might benefit from having this as flagged since data sharing changes.
16:30:57 <aleecia> npdoty, not just one side on this issue.
16:30:58 <fielding> I am not aware of any service providers that are willing to implementthat.
16:31:01 <npdoty> s/npdoty,/npdoty:/
16:31:08 <ifette> i thought we said service providers were basically the same as the party
16:31:10 <aleecia> sorry -
16:31:24 <ifette> (e.g. not calling them out explicitly to users)
16:31:25 <aleecia> schunter: start with text and see what comments we get back
16:32:06 <aleecia> … Roy, will you take the action to remove service provider flag from header?
16:32:15 <aleecia> fielding: ok
16:32:22 <efelten> Do we have consensus on this?
16:32:23 <fielding> (of course, I just added that flag last night)
16:32:33 <mischat> mischat has joined #dnt
16:32:40 <aleecia> dsinger: are we saying outsourced should be indistinguishable from first parties?
16:32:46 <aleecia> fielding: not relevant
16:32:52 <rvaneijk> wow, the flag get's from the table just like that. I remember a good discussion on that in Seattle.
16:32:58 <aleecia> dsinger: very relevant, different legal liability
16:33:05 <schunter> Rob>
16:33:06 <jmayer> Um, what?
16:33:11 <aleecia> dsinger: I'll let it go
16:33:14 <dsinger> they are different parties, without question.
16:33:15 <johnsimpson> what are we dropping again, please?
16:33:29 <jmayer> +q
16:33:33 <jchester2> I agree that we need to make such a distinction
16:33:35 <aleecia> ?: remember Ed Felten explaining this is important and in the EU context as well
16:33:38 <efelten> q+
16:33:46 <jmayer> -q
16:33:47 <jmayer> +q
16:33:51 <ifette> we seem to be not even agreeing on things we already agreed to in our previous meetings
16:33:52 <npdoty> s/?:/rvaneijk:/
16:33:54 <aleecia> ?: dialog you get with user is different from contract and contract with service provider
16:34:00 <npdoty> s/?:/rvaneijk:/
16:34:06 <aleecia> schunter: what's the difference?
16:34:09 <dsinger> "I am Matthias" and "Im am acting solely on behalf of Matthias" are pretty different statements. I hope.
16:34:36 <Chris_IAB> legally, in the US, doesn't the first party include their contractors?
16:34:45 <aleecia> rvaneijk: if you're a legal processor you aren't just part of the first party, would decrease transparency. service provider flag very useful. In favor of keeping the flag.
16:34:45 <jchester2> the data processor even as outsource may engage in different actions that raise concerns for users.  Keep the flag
16:34:49 <schunter> rob: 1st party should only be claimable if you are contracted to be a service provider.
16:34:50 <vincent> I though Rigo opposed to that idea of distinguishing first party and outsourcing (might be I misunderstood)
16:35:02 <schunter> Other helping parties may not be permitted to be 1st party.
16:35:16 <aleecia> fielding: had that discussion with European regulators and they say the opposite. There's no requirement to reveal themselves to users, and there's a contract.
16:35:21 <ifette> Are we going to require every hosting company, every router, every proxy, etc to add some service provider flag?
16:35:35 <Chris_IAB> every contractor?
16:35:38 <efelten> q+
16:35:40 <aleecia> …would love to have language for "data processor as defined by the EU" but I can't - many service providers involved.
16:35:47 <Chris_IAB> it would result in white noise
16:36:00 <johnsimpson> q?
16:36:00 <aleecia> …ridiculous to say there needs to be an S on the flag because there's a service provider involved, that's non-sensical 
16:36:01 <schunter> q?
16:36:05 <dsinger> sorry, this is separate from outsourcing, then?
16:36:10 <aleecia> schunter: will process the queue
16:36:12 <jchester2> Transparency for data service providers is good for public.
16:36:12 <schunter> q?
16:36:17 <schunter> ack efelten
16:36:31 <fielding> Transparency can be in the human-readable policy
16:37:17 <aleecia> efelten: different cases here. 1. existence of separate entities is not visible like hosting. 2. obvious like different entities, like analytics companies. is the analytics company claiming to be a service provider or a first party in their own right?
16:37:19 <susanisrael> q+
16:37:28 <Zakim> -efelten
16:37:31 <aleecia> … when they are visible should be clear what role they're claiming.
16:37:34 <schunter> q?
16:37:38 <schunter> ack jmayer
16:37:44 <Chris_IAB> isn't it up to the first party to provide the protections to the user, for it and all of it's contracted service providers... the legal liability would be on the 1st party, no?
16:38:09 <Zakim> +efelten
16:38:21 <ifette> q+ to ask if we're trying to resolve this issue here and now, or just figure out where we have consensus on issues and move on?
16:38:31 <aleecia> jmayer: agree with Ed, add another motivation that very concerned about service provider exception. potential for abuse. collecting a lot of information. need ability to understand who claims the exemption and how they use it. 
16:38:38 <schunter> Let's close the queue
16:38:52 <aleecia> … are they using technical measures, are they analytics, or are they doing something new? can't tell without information.
16:38:52 <Chris_IAB> doesn't the 1st party actually claim the exception for it and it's service providers?  can someone please clarify?
16:38:55 <Zakim> +??P60
16:38:57 <aleecia> zakim, close queue
16:38:57 <Zakim> ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is closed
16:39:12 <fielding> efelten, if the user agent can figure that out by domain, then it already knows that it is a separate legal entity.  The response of 1 from such an entity on a different site's page is exactly the information you need.
16:39:20 <aleecia> schunter: ok, don't have agreement. need to gather inputs.
16:39:20 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:39:26 <susanisrael> are you going to return to the queue
16:39:35 <justin> q?
16:39:37 <aleecia> schunter: would like actions assigned to generate text
16:39:50 <fielding> I will reiterate, I am not willing to implement that flag.
16:39:57 <aleecia> … won't solve this in the next two minutes
16:40:06 <schunter> q?
16:40:08 <efelten> No, there are two different claims that bar-analytics could be making:  (1) I am a service provider to foo.com, and will silo data.  (2) I am a new first party in my own right, and therefore won't silo the data.
16:40:15 <ifette> +1 to missing due to IETF
16:40:18 <aleecia> fielding: won't make call in two weeks
16:40:24 <lia_> lia_ has joined #dnt
16:40:30 <aleecia> schunter: can do in three weeks if needed
16:40:36 <Chris_IAB> under the current draft, does the service provider need to exercise the exception, or the 1st party on behalf if it and its service provider(s)?
16:40:40 <aleecia> … point is, won't solve this right now
16:40:41 <dsinger> can we ask Jonathan and Roy and maybe one or two others to write up an issue discussion (email)?
16:40:53 <aleecia> … we'll write texts and take it up again
16:40:55 <schunter> q?
16:40:56 <aleecia> q?
16:41:04 <ifette> q-
16:41:10 <ifette> ack
16:41:14 <Lia> Lia has joined #dnt
16:41:22 <aleecia> susanisrael: trying to understand since talking about multiple things when talking about service providers
16:41:36 <jmayer> I would add that I don't think the hosting platform should be exempt from sending a service provider flag.
16:41:46 <fielding> efelten, that information would be in the human-readable tracking policy
16:41:47 <jmayer> E.g. wordpress.com could send this.
16:42:02 <Chris_IAB> well stated... need the clarification
16:42:08 <aleecia> … as designated by first party under contract, no right to use data independently. if that's the defn, that affects if we need a flag or not. if just any company can claim it, that's different. can we clarify that?
16:42:15 <npdoty> Chris_IAB, as I understand the current draft, the service provider exception exercised by a first party (like some backend process) would only need transparency in a privacy policy somewhere, but a service provider that responds to an HTTP request would note an "s" as well as a "1" in their response
16:42:41 <aleecia> schunter: Who wants to take the lead to work on this?
16:42:57 <ifette> +1
16:43:01 <aleecia> … if no one's interested, I'll drop the flag
16:43:02 <ifette> +1 to Matthias' suggestion
16:43:08 <Chris_IAB> thanks Nick
16:43:23 <fielding> no, I did
16:43:23 <jmayer> I don't agree with the point Susan just made—a contractual obligation doesn't in any way obviate the minimal burden and significant value of a service provider flag. 
16:43:23 <susanisrael> Maybe some of the first party -third party language clarification in compliance section may help
16:43:34 <aleecia> npdoty, Tom had already written it into the draft, we already have text
16:43:46 <aleecia> schunter: but if no one wants it we should drop it
16:43:46 <jchester2> we need to keep the flag
16:43:47 <jmayer> Seriously, matthias?
16:43:48 <susanisrael> I don't want to lead but can offer some language
16:43:51 <dsinger> I can help collect opinions next week if we need a leader.  
16:43:54 <aleecia> dsinger: but we do have people who want it
16:44:01 <Chris_IAB> seems like if we are going to add modifiers to DNT:, industry may have a ton of additional flag requests beyond the "simple" binary approach
16:44:23 <aleecia> schunter: concrete action is understanding the user cases and seeing if the text we have now meets them
16:44:30 <dsinger> if Ed, Jonathan, Roy and others who have opinions, points etc. can email their pieces, I will try to assemble them into an issue-presentation email
16:44:50 <aleecia> … do we have something a user agent can act upon usefully? 
16:44:52 <susanisrael> dsinger, i will email you some language
16:44:53 <Chris_IAB> to the user, would there be any effect of the flag?
16:45:03 <aleecia> … should limit ourselves to make sure there is value to the information
16:45:04 <Chris_IAB> of is this just for audit purposes?
16:45:16 <WileyS> Chris, appears this is for audit purposes only
16:45:16 <aleecia> dsinger: will lead with others
16:45:27 <dsinger> issue-137?
16:45:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-137 -- Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s) -- open
16:45:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
16:45:31 <aleecia> schunter: issue-137 in your email, please
16:45:48 <aleecia> … nick, please create an action for this
16:46:01 <Chris_IAB> WileyS, would be good to understand and validate the motivation for the flag... a real use case?
16:46:02 <npdoty> Chris_IAB, the response header is currently not binary, but if you have use cases that aren't captured by those response values, I expect the editors would be very interested
16:46:04 <WileyS> The only Compliance and Scope overhead for a Service Provider is separation of data for each 1st party they are providing services for.
16:46:07 <aleecia> schunter: issue-140
16:46:10 <aleecia> issue-140?
16:46:10 <trackbot> ISSUE-140 -- Do we need site-specific exceptions, i.e., concrete list of permitted thirdparties for a site? -- open
16:46:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/140
16:46:24 <aleecia> schunter: should be pending review, part of David's draft
16:46:34 <aleecia> … moving to pending review if no objections
16:46:54 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, I would propose the the header itself not be binary in that case... opens a can of worms... some worms may be useful to some and not others... but they are worms
16:46:56 <aleecia> npdoty: based on proposal from last night?
16:47:08 <WileyS> Yes - we need site-specific exceptions - what is the question at this point?
16:47:10 <aleecia> … have had other proposals for six months here
16:47:23 <aleecia> schunter: yes, we need to discuss them
16:47:52 <Zakim> -justin
16:48:03 <WileyS> Perhaps David can present his proposed text as this point?
16:48:05 <aleecia> … issue-145, discussed and reflected in the current text?
16:48:25 <aleecia> fielding: half way there. Not in header fields yet
16:48:43 <aleecia> schunter: ok, leaving open because text is not 100% there. Is there an action to finish this?
16:48:50 <ifette> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:48:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see aleecia, npdoty, fielding, dwainberg, samsilberman, BrendanIAB?, eberkower, Chris_IAB, alex, ifette, Joanne, James, KevinT, jchester2, vinay, WileyS, schunter,
16:48:53 <Zakim> ... susanisrael, +1.919.349.aaii, vincent, [Microsoft.a], bilcorry (muted), rvaneijk, adrianba, dsinger, johnsimpson, +1.206.369.aamm, jmayer, +1.206.658.aann, [Microsoft],
16:48:53 <Zakim> ... efelten, ??P60
16:48:53 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has suegl
16:48:53 <aleecia> fielding: issue-124, but not action
16:48:59 <npdoty> dsinger, I was just referring to previous versions of the site-specific exceptions text (from you, from tom, from me) that we had looked at over the past months
16:49:19 <aleecia> [discussion of internals on tracking the draft]
16:49:40 <fielding> yep
16:50:08 <fielding> 145 was a discussion completed in Bellevue
16:50:08 <npdoty> action: singer to collect input (from Tom, Jonathan, Ed, Rob) on needs for a service-provider flag and compare to current draft
16:50:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Collect input (from Tom, Jonathan, Ed, Rob) on needs for a service-provider flag and compare to current draft [on David Singer - due 2012-07-25].
16:50:15 <aleecia> schunter: last open issue, issue-156
16:50:19 <aleecia> issue-156?
16:50:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-156 -- Add a list of data processors to tracking status -- open
16:50:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/156
16:50:33 <aleecia> schunter: Tom is not on the call?
16:51:04 <ifette> ISSUE: charter is running out and we need to agree on whether to extend or recharter and what a revised charter would look like
16:51:05 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-157 - Charter is running out and we need to agree on whether to extend or recharter and what a revised charter would look like ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/157/edit .
16:51:07 <aleecia> … data breach, user can see what parties have stored data about them. Increased transparency
16:51:28 <npdoty> I suggest we assign an action to Tom to draft the reasoning and the proposal for 156
16:51:32 <aleecia> … Roy comments that contracts for service providers bars publishing their names
16:51:40 <aleecia> … what to do about issue-156?
16:51:42 <fielding> often
16:51:43 <WileyS> +q
16:51:49 <npdoty> Zakim, open queue
16:51:49 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
16:51:49 <schunter> q?
16:51:53 <WileyS> +q
16:52:03 <susanisrael> q-
16:52:07 <npdoty> ack WileyS 
16:52:19 <fielding> this is for a field in the resource
16:52:21 <aleecia> wileys: thought we had a resource for third parties. issue-137 related.
16:52:29 <aleecia> … optional resource link to data processors?
16:52:43 <fielding> yes, an array like "partners" and "same-site"
16:52:43 <npdoty> WileyS, you're suggesting that this is already covered by the `partners` field?
16:52:44 <aleecia> … if it's optional it's less controversial but they are linked
16:53:04 <fielding> TL wanted it to be mandatory
16:53:04 <WileyS> No - this is a net new resource list
16:53:10 <aleecia> schunter: issue-137 was a flag not a URI or additional information 
16:53:10 <dsinger> That was my understanding; that if someone claims "I am acting on behalf of the 1st party" the 1st party could have a list that verifies that (optionally)
16:53:16 <WileyS> I don't agree with mandatory
16:53:26 <WileyS> I agree with optional
16:53:30 <aleecia> … how do we handle data processors and service providers, if at all. 
16:53:43 <aleecia> … what do we need to communicate to user agents, and how to convey this information? 
16:53:46 <fielding> dsinger, different issue -- that is same-site
16:54:02 <WileyS> But don't feel its helpful to have this list if issue-137 resolves with no distinction between 1st party and service provider in use messaging
16:54:16 <WileyS> "user" messaging
16:54:22 <aleecia> … let's leave it open and discuss under issue-137, if we need a URL then we'll resolve this too at the same time. If we don't have a user case, should ask Tom why we need it.
16:54:22 <npdoty> I suggest rather than we assign an action to Tom who can explain what he had in mind, and suggest to him that maybe it's already covered by existing fields
16:54:32 <jmayer> Agree npdoty.
16:54:50 <aleecia> … postponing issue-156 and add note in issue-137 to link them
16:54:57 <jmayer> +q
16:54:58 <npdoty> s/rather than/rather than speculating/
16:55:12 <Zakim> - +1.206.658.aann
16:55:19 <aleecia> jmayer: Nick's suggestion, ask Tom what he had in mind. Seems reasonable.
16:55:29 <Zakim> -James
16:55:41 <fielding> "Tom has requested that users be able to see who is going to retain the data from tracking such that the user can know their data might have been compromised if there is some later breach announced."
16:55:44 <aleecia> schunter: postponing issue-156, link in issue-137, Nick please send a note to Tom
16:55:58 <fielding> (I put it in the issue description)
16:56:28 <ifette> q+
16:56:35 <ifette> we have an open issue not discussed
16:56:38 <ifette> ISSUE-157?
16:56:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-157 -- Charter is running out and we need to agree on whether to extend or recharter and what a revised charter would look like -- raised
16:56:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/157
16:56:47 <schunter> q?
16:56:51 <schunter> ack jmayer
16:56:54 <jmayer> fielding, unclear if that means a list of third parties, service providers, corporate affiliates...
16:57:02 <aleecia> ifette, charter expires this month
16:57:04 <npdoty> q+
16:57:20 <fielding> data processors (service providers for *this* domain of WKL)
16:57:36 <aleecia> npdoty: Thomas is not on the call today, but if you have comments on how you think charter should look, should have heard back from Thomas already. If not, follow up with me
16:57:55 <WileyS> We need to have this discussion
16:58:02 <WileyS> +1 to Ian
16:58:09 <aleecia> ifette: Thomas' response was he expects things to continue as-is, which is not what many of us discussed. Want to involve the whole group not one-off discussions.
16:58:27 <jchester2> What's the problem extending this for 6 months so we can finish up.  Is there anyone that opposes an extension?
16:58:31 <aleecia> npdoty: commonly go through consortium not the group, since not substantive. 
16:58:47 <aleecia> ifette: would like to request time on an upcoming meeting to discuss it
16:58:55 <jchester2> Ian:  Can you tell us Google's concerns about the charter extension?
16:58:55 <aleecia> npdoty: sharing how we commonly do this
16:59:06 <Chris_IAB> it would be good if everyone understood and were aware of charter discussions, I agree
16:59:16 <dwainberg> I agree, and have proposed this to Thomas via email as well.
16:59:17 <Chris_IAB> agree with Ian
16:59:24 <aleecia> ifette: number of people want to discuss this, heard this in f2f and on mailing list. Should set aside time to discuss this.
16:59:24 <dsinger> now we have an issue, people could write emails with their concerns, linked to the issue...
16:59:48 <aleecia> schunter: will take this up on the next chairs' call and discuss with Thomas, Nick, Aleecia, Matthias.
16:59:52 <jchester2> Let's put the charter on the agenda--so the public can understand what the positions are.
17:00:01 <ifette> 157
17:00:14 <aleecia> … like David's suggestion of putting this on the mailing list for issue-157
17:00:18 <Chris_IAB> lots of stakeholders now, representing many different interests, will ALL be interested in if/how rechartering goes
17:00:29 <aleecia> … will discuss how to move forward on the next chairs' call
17:00:42 <aleecia> ifette: what does that mean? Will there be time on a call?
17:01:06 <aleecia> schunter: need to talk to Thomas, but need to know what the status is
17:01:07 <ifette> great
17:01:22 <aleecia> … cannot assess the status to make a decision on what to do
17:01:39 <aleecia> … cannot promise a discussion next week when I don't know what Thomas needs
17:01:56 <aleecia> … but would like your input besides just changing the date
17:02:05 <Zakim> -Joanne
17:02:19 <aleecia> … next item on agenda
17:02:22 <aleecia> agenda?
17:02:33 <aleecia> close agendum 5
17:02:48 <fielding> TPE diff since last WD that I mailed this morning is archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jul/att-0109/tpe_diff.html
17:02:58 <aleecia> schunter: will hear from David, then Nick, then what our next actions are
17:03:13 <aleecia> schunter: David, please summarize new proposal and what changes made?
17:03:51 <aleecia> dsinger: explicit parameters to site-specific, was out for several weeks. Revised based on f2f, removed explicit list from API and can use partners list. 
17:03:59 <schunter> q?
17:04:04 <ifette> q-
17:04:06 <npdoty> q-
17:04:09 <aleecia> … doing just a diff
17:04:29 <aleecia> … two sets of APIs. specific APIs for first party, and then web-wide for what happens on the WWW
17:04:42 <aleecia> … prior version had specific list of sites 
17:04:57 <aleecia> … concerns that UA couldn't do this well and bad user experience
17:05:14 <aleecia> … resolution at f2f was to remove parameter and have partners list in well known resourse
17:05:32 <aleecia> … processing model was not implementation. what does UA have to remember, what is the matching rule
17:05:46 <aleecia> … in 6.4, JS API for site-specific is just a call back. 
17:06:11 <aleecia> … changed the UA behavior to use list of targets if it exists, or * if it does not. May use * even if partners' list exists
17:06:13 <schunter> q?
17:06:21 <aleecia> … ends up in database. 
17:06:40 <aleecia> … much simpler: removes everything it remembered about that site [missing a bit]
17:06:40 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.aa]
17:06:53 <aleecia> … web-wide exception is not changed in this process
17:07:22 <aleecia> … why SHOULD list? sites have different classes of parties, good relationship and contract, need to get permission to track properly.
17:07:56 <aleecia> … but they may be pulling in third parties the top party is unaware of. Top party may wish to distinguish them, so that's why I wrote it in that way. We should discuss.
17:07:56 <schunter> q?
17:08:12 <aleecia> … top level origin, domains, split -- Nick has better language to improve it. 
17:08:18 <ifette> what is the purpose of the site specifying the siteName in the js call?
17:08:23 <aleecia> … processing model is a model, not a mandate for how things work
17:08:33 <aleecia> … implementation is up to sites
17:08:41 <aleecia> (I could use time to read this!)
17:08:49 <dsinger> s/sites/agents/
17:08:56 <aleecia> schunter: start with questions of understanding
17:08:57 <ifette> q+ to ask what is the function of the siteName parameter
17:09:09 <schunter> q?
17:09:22 <npdoty> q+ to answer
17:09:26 <aleecia> ifettte: What's the siteName parameter in section 6.4.1.1?
17:09:39 <aleecia> … supposed to be origin of the site but doesn't the browser know?
17:09:46 <fielding> q+ to say I am not fond of methods that have no indication of success, like removeWebWideTrackingException -- how will a UI provide feedback to user?
17:09:53 <aleecia> dsinger: human-readable. New York Times, not nytimes.com
17:09:59 <aleecia> … can clarify
17:10:00 <schunter> ack ifette
17:10:00 <Zakim> ifette, you wanted to ask what is the function of the siteName parameter
17:10:03 <amyc> amyc has joined #dnt
17:10:05 <schunter> ack npdoty
17:10:05 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to answer
17:10:09 <schunter> ack fielding
17:10:09 <Zakim> fielding, you wanted to say I am not fond of methods that have no indication of success, like removeWebWideTrackingException -- how will a UI provide feedback to user?
17:10:15 <aleecia> npdoty: been in the proposal from feb, that's right, human readable
17:10:27 <aleecia> fielding: would prefer callback methods
17:10:37 <aleecia> … let JS know it succeeded or not
17:10:46 <aleecia> … remove webwide tracking exceptions
17:10:53 <aleecia> dsinger: no failure possible for that
17:10:59 <npdoty> the proposal from Tom in February is here http://www.w3.org/mid/4F4E6C1A.9010606@mozilla.com
17:10:59 <aleecia> … didn't think it was necessary
17:11:19 <aleecia> fielding: in theory, yes but there's always a failure mode. like UA crashed, interface between -
17:11:28 <aleecia> dsinger: ok, I see. Internal processing error 
17:11:53 <aleecia> dsinger: editors will work on this
17:11:54 <schunter> q?
17:12:01 <adrianba> q+
17:12:02 <aleecia> schunter: other questions of understanding?
17:12:03 <npdoty> q+
17:12:19 <aleecia> … will jump into discussion 
17:12:23 <ifette> This largely reflects what I remember we agreed to in Seattle...
17:12:29 <npdoty> action: singer to update remove methods to have an appropriate failure mode
17:12:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Update remove methods to have an appropriate failure mode [on David Singer - due 2012-07-25].
17:12:42 <fielding> s/UA crashed/UA thread crashed/
17:12:53 <dsinger> q+
17:12:57 <schunter> q?
17:12:58 <aleecia> … would like to see if there are requirements not reflect in the draft, or improvements 
17:13:06 <schunter> ack adrianba
17:13:08 <dwainberg> q+
17:13:33 <aleecia> adrianba: callbacks - if we add a callback to change the execution to be async, was that deliberate?
17:13:46 <fielding> fine with me
17:13:54 <ifette> no sync apis
17:13:54 <aleecia> … can we keep it as a synch call and indicate success?
17:13:56 <dwainberg> q-
17:13:57 <ifette> q+
17:13:59 <schunter> q?
17:13:59 <npdoty> +1 to adrianba, failure for the remove call can be synchronous
17:14:01 <ifette> what are we adding a sync api for?!?!?
17:14:04 <schunter> ack npdoty
17:14:18 <aleecia> npdoty: ask if UA has to make separate HTTP request?
17:14:30 <aleecia> … in order to complete the exception call. And do we want that?
17:14:38 <aleecia> inaudible 
17:14:51 <aleecia> schunter: if UA needs the info we need to make a separate call
17:14:55 <schunter> q?
17:15:02 <aleecia> npdoty: we're saying they should
17:15:03 <ifette> -1 to SHOULD
17:15:08 <ifette> MAY sure, but not SHOULD
17:15:17 <aleecia> schunter: why receive information they don't need?
17:15:20 <Zakim> - +1.919.349.aaii
17:15:23 <aleecia> npdoty: text says SHOULD
17:15:33 <dsinger> "The user-agent should use the partners as the list of targets, if it exists, or a list containing the single special string “*”, indicating all targets, as the target if it does not; it may use a list of the special string “*” even if the partners list exists."
17:15:36 <aleecia> dsinger: may be important to have third parties in two classes
17:15:53 <aleecia> schunter: if first party doesn't care, that's it, doesn't matter
17:15:58 <Zakim> -bilcorry
17:16:03 <ifette> Where is the SHOULD fetch we're discussing in the text?
17:16:24 <npdoty> "The user-agent should use the partners as the list of targets, if it exists, or a list containing the single special string “*”, indicating all targets, as the target if it does not; it may use a list of the special string “*” even if the partners list exists." implies a fetch to get the partners list
17:16:25 <dsinger> ifette: I posted the sentence above
17:16:25 <aleecia> dsinger: removal of parameter means first party can no longer say "I don't care" need partners list
17:16:32 <aleecia> schunter: should leave it to the UA. 
17:16:34 <adrianba> ifette, in the requestSiteSpecificTrackingException method
17:16:44 <ifette> i would not agree with that sentence
17:16:45 <JC> +q
17:16:48 <aleecia> … asking user for any third parties on the site should be ok
17:16:48 <schunter> q?
17:17:04 <jmayer> +q
17:17:05 <aleecia> … would like different behaviors from different UAs
17:17:11 <aleecia> (scribe breaking)
17:17:11 <schunter> q?
17:17:16 <npdoty> q+ to suggest that it's long been optional
17:17:17 <schunter> ack dsinger
17:17:18 <Chris_IAB> a partner list/ contractor list may be considered competitive information
17:17:29 <aleecia> dsinger: let's back up and talk about in- and out-of-bound exceptions
17:17:45 <aleecia> … should we have both? (b) will in-bound be acceptable to anyone?
17:17:52 <schunter> q?
17:17:53 <aleecia> … API may be completely worthless.
17:17:56 <schunter> ack ifette
17:18:09 <Zakim> -??P60
17:18:19 <aleecia> ifette: to David's point, need way to store in UA if blocking third party cookies by default. Need to store.
17:18:41 <aleecia> … understood in Seattle moving to URI because up to the browser to deal with it or not. Thought that was the whole point.
17:18:50 <aleecia> dsinger: should is a recommendation not a mandate
17:19:01 <aleecia> ifetter: should is a must unless there's a strong reason not to
17:19:06 <schunter> MAY
17:19:27 <aleecia> schunter: understand Ian as saying wants a MAY not a SHOULD. can everyone live with MAY?
17:19:48 <jmayer> How about a "Best Practice" note on this.
17:19:50 <aleecia> dsinger: means a site that has two different classes of partners can't do that any more
17:19:50 <adrianba> q?
17:19:57 <jmayer> Roughly between a MAY and a SHOULD.
17:20:04 <aleecia> ifette: yes, but that's what we discussed in Seattle
17:20:12 <aleecia> … which API to make it sync?
17:20:21 <aleecia> dsinger: for processing errors
17:20:40 <aleecia> schunter: site can offer this info to UA, but UA may not do anything with it
17:20:55 <dsinger> (the remove calls are synchronous but will have a return value in case of processing failure etc.)
17:21:01 <aleecia> … can ask user "are 3rd parties ok here?" like on a small device. Shouldn't outlaw different types of UAs
17:21:10 <aleecia> dsinger: spec as written does not outlaw that
17:21:30 <schunter> MAY
17:21:46 <aleecia> dsinger: perhaps change language here to suggested behavior
17:21:56 <WileyS> David, Jonathan had offered up the idea of a "Best Practice" note - I agree with that approach
17:21:59 <aleecia> schunter: common use for this list is … and how UA would put it to use
17:22:01 <adrianba> SHOULD is a very strong requirement - MAY is better
17:22:04 <aleecia> dsinger: will work on it
17:22:05 <schunter> ok.
17:22:07 <schunter> q?
17:22:09 <aleecia> q?
17:22:13 <npdoty> q?
17:22:14 <npdoty> q?
17:22:15 <npdoty> q?
17:22:19 <fielding> removeWebWideTrackingException was the API (actually, I thought it was async or at least might call an async action internally, hence the need for some kind of "failed to complete" response somewhere)
17:22:20 <aleecia> schunter: looking for MAY
17:22:28 <ifette> I don't want to be called "not a good user agent" or "not best behavior" if we don't do that
17:22:33 <aleecia> dsinger: need more than MAY, best behavior. We can work on it
17:22:45 <aleecia> schunter: ok, please review and we'll take a look
17:22:55 <Chris_IAB> in any case, should we clarify that its not a requirement (in the text)-- so as to be clear?
17:23:02 <aleecia> … many different UAs may do different things
17:23:10 <dwainberg> this sounds like a policy issue
17:23:10 <Chris_IAB> or not an absolute requirement, depending on the use case
17:23:13 <ifette> david, it should be clear that you don't have to use it
17:23:17 <aleecia> dsinger: clear that no need to fetch the list if you're not going to use it
17:23:19 <dwainberg> it's either a technical requirement or not, right?
17:23:23 <ifette> we should not say you SHOULD use the list
17:23:25 <schunter> q?
17:23:25 <WileyS> David, with that in mind that means "MAY" is appropriate here
17:23:55 <WileyS> The practice is a "MAY", if a UA opts to engage in that practice then they SHOULD do the following things.
17:23:59 <aleecia> dsinger: not a policy issue really, what can sites expect from UAs? Who gets a DNT:0 in the future, everyone or the list I care about? What's the sort of contract between sites and UAs?
17:24:00 <schunter> Important goal for UA: All people on the list get DNT;0
17:24:05 <Chris_IAB> good question: who's enabled the sending of DNT:0 today?  I count none thus far...
17:24:28 <schunter> q?
17:24:33 <schunter> ack JC
17:24:33 <aleecia> schunter: important point is that people on the list get DNT:0. How many and under what conditions is up to the [unclear]
17:24:36 <jmayer> I've put together a prototype of Do Not Track exceptions: http://webpolicy.org/2012/07/02/do-track-browser-based-do-not-track-exceptions/
17:25:04 <aleecia> JC: list of 3rd parties is dynamic. If Monday user says ok and Tuesday the list changes, putting the list in front of the user a second time isn't useful
17:25:13 <ifette> +1 to JC and yes I hope it's transitive
17:25:18 <aleecia> … is this transitive, if a 3rd party needs another party, does it flow to them?
17:25:33 <aleecia> dsinger: what happens with redirects? If your site is very dynamic, you need to ask for all
17:25:50 <aleecia> JC: are we saying the user trusts the site and all their third parties? Otherwise can't see how this works well
17:25:57 <ifette> JC, that's why I've been arguing against enumerating third parties from the beginning
17:26:03 <aleecia> schunter: Rigo proposed language for the recursive condition
17:26:09 <aleecia> JC: dynamic aspects, though
17:26:11 <schunter> q?
17:26:15 <schunter> ack jmayer
17:26:22 <aleecia> dsinger: that's why I have concerns about the whole model 
17:26:32 <aleecia> … putting that into the UA 
17:26:42 <aleecia> schunter: but Ian's point, we need to store exceptions
17:26:56 <aleecia> dsinger: cookie-like behavior?
17:27:05 <aleecia> schunter: API more limited than a cookie
17:27:12 <aleecia> dsinger: will take this off-line
17:28:09 <aleecia> jmayer: three points. first, JC's point on dynamic third-parties. two ways can deal with it. one, site-wide. takes dynamism off the table. two, as an optional or always or never on, multiple levels and surface them to make decisions.
17:28:26 <Zakim> -susanisrael
17:29:00 <aleecia> … point two was Ian's, storage mechanisms. simple API for "I pinkie swear I'm storing user pref on privacy, whatever you block, let me save just this." If storage is the only problem for out-of-band, we can solve that.
17:29:13 <aleecia> …point three, don't have agreement on list approach or explicit API approach
17:29:41 <aleecia> … explicit is so much better because list approach has same functionality. Anything in a list can be expressed either way.
17:29:53 <aleecia> … only difference is in how browsers and websites implement 
17:30:04 <schunter> List has advantage of discoverability.
17:30:06 <aleecia> … building explicit API is straight-forward. 
17:30:25 <ifette> Right, I though though that we kicked it out to a list instead of in the API because we wanted to make it explicit that it was totally optional whether or not the browser wanted to fetch the list, and we suspected a number of browsers would not want to fetch that list
17:30:42 <dsinger> yes, moving the list to the well-known resource, and making it optional whether the UA takes any notice of it, are quite orthogonal, I agree
17:30:52 <Zakim> -BrendanIAB?
17:30:53 <aleecia> … snapshot approach and sending DNT:0, caching, periodically checking it. website calls JS API, objects in webs tie to tweak, customize to user or quickly, anything other than static list for all users
17:31:00 <aleecia> … no brainer to go with explicit model 
17:31:01 <aleecia> q?
17:31:14 <Zakim> -vinay
17:31:25 <aleecia> schunter: running out of time. empty queue, David to update proposal
17:31:44 <dwainberg> time has run out -- can we please postpone further discussion?
17:31:50 <schunter> q?
17:31:55 <aleecia> … understand Jonathan's point, explicit API is equiv, and if everyone can live with it that's fine
17:31:59 <dsinger> as I understand it, I have to provide return stati for the cancel calls, and improve the 'should
17:32:03 <aleecia> … will look at David's update
17:32:10 <schunter> ack npdoty
17:32:10 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to suggest that it's long been optional
17:32:21 <aleecia> npdoty: support option for UAs
17:32:26 <jmayer> Matthias, I don't think you're going to hoodwink objectors by swapping the API for something nonsensical.
17:32:28 <aleecia> … can have different UIs, list or not.
17:32:29 <schunter> Explicit API cannot make the list optional.
17:32:33 <dsinger> I want to discuss IBE vs. OOBE though; we may be fiddling with the paint on a ship that's sinking
17:32:34 <schunter> (to the user agent(
17:32:35 <aleecia> … proposal since feb, can use that.
17:32:35 <schunter> )
17:32:39 <ifette> nick, "since february" with many outstanding objections
17:32:44 <jmayer> Why can't an explicit API be optional?
17:32:46 <aleecia> … will follow up more offline 
17:32:47 <Chris_IAB> I'm curious to know why those browsers who have implemented DNT thus far, have only implemented DNT:1 or null (and not DNT:0)?
17:32:47 <ifette> objections since february :)
17:32:55 <aleecia> schunter: thanks all.
17:33:01 <aleecia> dsinger: can be optional
17:33:12 <aleecia> dsinger: orthogonal issue
17:33:17 <jmayer> Options: don't offer the API, automatically swap calls for site-wide requests, ...
17:33:27 <aleecia> schunter: can stay online for anyone who can stay
17:33:28 <ifette> bye bye
17:33:30 <npdoty> ifette, I just meant, if your concern was just making it optional, that functionality has been long available
17:33:31 <aleecia> dsinger: have to go
17:33:35 <ifette> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:33:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/18-dnt-minutes.html ifette
17:33:42 <aleecia> schunter: call on compliance spec next week. thanks!
17:33:42 <ifette> Zakim, list participants
17:33:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been aleecia, npdoty, suegl, fielding, dwainberg, samsilberman, BrendanIAB?, +1.646.654.aaaa, +1.212.380.aabb, eberkower, +1.813.366.aacc,
17:33:46 <Zakim> ... +1.650.214.aadd, alex, ifette, Joanne, Chris_IAB, +1.925.253.aaee, KevinT, jchester2, James, +1.917.934.aaff, WileyS, vinay, +49.172.147.aagg, +1.917.934.aahh, schunter,
17:33:46 <Zakim> ... +1.919.349.aaii, justin, vincent, +1.408.223.aajj, +31.65.141.aakk, bilcorry, rvaneijk, adrianba, +1.310.392.aall, +1.206.369.aamm, dsinger, susanisrael, johnsimpson, jmayer,
17:33:46 <Zakim> ... +1.206.658.aann, +1.202.326.aaoo, efelten, [Microsoft]
17:33:46 <Zakim> -WileyS
17:33:48 <aleecia> david has to go
17:33:51 <Zakim> -samsilberman
17:33:51 <Zakim> -KevinT
17:33:52 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:33:52 <ifette> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:33:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/18-dnt-minutes.html ifette
17:33:54 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:33:56 <Zakim> - +1.206.369.aamm
17:33:57 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:33:57 <Zakim> -ifette
17:33:59 <Zakim> -efelten
17:34:20 <Zakim> -alex
17:34:28 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.aa]
17:34:29 <Zakim> -jmayer
17:34:40 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:34:50 <aleecia> RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:34:59 <aleecia> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:34:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/18-dnt-minutes.html aleecia
17:35:12 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:35:17 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:35:31 <Zakim> -vincent
17:35:43 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
17:35:45 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:35:46 <Zakim> -dsinger
17:35:47 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:35:50 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:35:51 <Zakim> -fielding
17:35:51 <Zakim> -schunter
17:35:53 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB
17:36:08 <adrianba> adrianba has left #dnt
17:36:10 <Zakim> -aleecia
17:36:11 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:36:11 <Zakim> Attendees were aleecia, npdoty, suegl, fielding, dwainberg, samsilberman, BrendanIAB?, +1.646.654.aaaa, +1.212.380.aabb, eberkower, +1.813.366.aacc, +1.650.214.aadd, alex, ifette,
17:36:11 <Zakim> ... Joanne, Chris_IAB, +1.925.253.aaee, KevinT, jchester2, James, +1.917.934.aaff, WileyS, vinay, +49.172.147.aagg, +1.917.934.aahh, schunter, +1.919.349.aaii, justin, vincent,
17:36:13 <Zakim> ... +1.408.223.aajj, +31.65.141.aakk, bilcorry, rvaneijk, adrianba, +1.310.392.aall, +1.206.369.aamm, dsinger, susanisrael, johnsimpson, jmayer, +1.206.658.aann, +1.202.326.aaoo,
17:36:13 <Zakim> ... efelten, [Microsoft]
17:38:30 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:51:23 <KevinT1> KevinT1 has joined #dnt
18:03:38 <ifette> ifette has joined #dnt
18:44:36 <KevinT1> KevinT1 has left #dnt
19:31:17 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
23:08:31 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt