IRC log of dnt on 2012-09-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:42:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:42:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:42:23 [aleecia]
Zakim, this will be dnt
15:42:23 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
15:42:27 [aleecia]
chair: schunter
15:42:54 [aleecia]
regrets+ JeffChester, DavidSinger, JonathanMayer
15:43:06 [aleecia]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:43:28 [aleecia]
agenda+ Selection of scribe
15:43:44 [aleecia]
agenda+ Review of overdue action items:
15:43:58 [aleecia]
agenda+ Any comments on published minutes
15:44:09 [aleecia]
agenda+ Quick check that callers are identified
15:44:35 [aleecia]
agenda+ Feedback on the working groups tri-state decision
15:44:35 [aleecia]
15:44:54 [aleecia]
agenda+ Publication of the TPE spec as working draft:
15:44:54 [aleecia]
15:44:55 [aleecia]
Are there objections against creating a snapshot of this document to be published as our next TPE working draft?
15:45:03 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:45:41 [aleecia]
agenda+ ISSUE 137: Service provider flag
15:46:06 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
15:46:31 [aleecia]
agenda+ ISSUE 116 JScript DOM Properties; Review proposed changes by Nick:
15:47:25 [aleecia]
agenda+ ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site specific exceptions; Discuss David's post
15:48:20 [aleecia]
agenda+ ISSUE-138: How can providers without HTML real-estate obtain exceptions?
15:48:58 [aleecia]
agenda+ Screen RAISED issues to decide which issues to open and what actions to assign:
15:49:10 [aleecia]
agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
15:49:18 [aleecia]
zakim, agenda?
15:49:18 [Zakim]
I see 12 items remaining on the agenda:
15:49:19 [Zakim]
1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia]
15:49:19 [Zakim]
2. Review of overdue action items: [from aleecia]
15:49:19 [Zakim]
3. Any comments on published minutes [from aleecia]
15:49:19 [Zakim]
4. Quick check that callers are identified [from aleecia]
15:49:20 [Zakim]
5. Feedback on the working groups tri-state decision [from aleecia]
15:49:22 [Zakim]
6. Publication of the TPE spec as working draft: [from aleecia]
15:49:24 [Zakim]
7. ISSUE 137: Service provider flag [from aleecia]
15:49:27 [Zakim]
8. ISSUE 116 JScript DOM Properties; Review proposed changes by Nick:
15:49:30 [Zakim]
... [from aleecia]
15:49:32 [Zakim]
9. ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site specific exceptions; Discuss David's post
15:49:34 [Zakim]
... [from aleecia]
15:49:36 [Zakim]
10. ISSUE-138: How can providers without HTML real-estate obtain exceptions? [from aleecia]
15:49:39 [Zakim]
11. Screen RAISED issues to decide which issues to open and what actions to assign: [from aleecia]
15:49:42 [Zakim]
12. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia]
15:51:14 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:51:21 [Zakim]
15:51:23 [aleecia]
zakim, mute me
15:51:23 [Zakim]
sorry, aleecia, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
15:51:29 [aleecia]
15:55:26 [BrendanIAB]
BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
15:55:38 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
15:55:51 [Zakim]
15:56:03 [aleecia]
zakim, please mute me
15:56:03 [Zakim]
aleecia should now be muted
15:56:08 [BrendanIAB]
Zakim, IPCaller is probably BrendanIAB
15:56:08 [Zakim]
+BrendanIAB?; got it
15:56:24 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
15:56:25 [aleecia]
thanks, Brendan!
15:56:32 [Zakim]
15:56:43 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
15:56:43 [Zakim]
Rigo should now be muted
15:57:02 [Zakim]
15:57:11 [cblouch]
cblouch has joined #dnt
15:57:32 [damiano]
damiano has joined #dnt
15:58:25 [Zakim]
15:58:31 [Zakim]
15:58:34 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:58:35 [Zakim]
15:58:43 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
15:58:49 [Zakim]
15:58:51 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
15:59:00 [aleecia]
good morning, Matthias
15:59:07 [aleecia]
zakim, agenda?
15:59:07 [Zakim]
I see 12 items remaining on the agenda:
15:59:09 [Zakim]
1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia]
15:59:09 [Zakim]
2. Review of overdue action items: [from aleecia]
15:59:09 [Zakim]
3. Any comments on published minutes [from aleecia]
15:59:09 [Zakim]
4. Quick check that callers are identified [from aleecia]
15:59:09 [Zakim]
5. Feedback on the working groups tri-state decision [from aleecia]
15:59:11 [Zakim]
6. Publication of the TPE spec as working draft: [from aleecia]
15:59:13 [Zakim]
7. ISSUE 137: Service provider flag [from aleecia]
15:59:15 [Zakim]
8. ISSUE 116 JScript DOM Properties; Review proposed changes by Nick:
15:59:18 [Zakim]
... [from aleecia]
15:59:21 [Zakim]
9. ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site specific exceptions; Discuss David's post
15:59:23 [Zakim]
... [from aleecia]
15:59:25 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
15:59:25 [Zakim]
10. ISSUE-138: How can providers without HTML real-estate obtain exceptions? [from aleecia]
15:59:32 [Zakim]
11. Screen RAISED issues to decide which issues to open and what actions to assign: [from aleecia]
15:59:37 [Zakim]
12. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia]
15:59:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.265.aaaa
16:00:15 [Zakim]
16:00:17 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:00:22 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:25 [jeffwilson]
zakim, aaaa is jeffwilson
16:00:28 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:00:39 [Zakim]
16:00:41 [Zakim]
16:00:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia (muted), BrendanIAB?, Rigo (muted), damiano, dwainberg, cblouch, schunter, RichardWeaver, +1.703.265.aaaa, Joanne, [Google], npdoty
16:00:50 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:00:52 [Zakim]
+jeffwilson; got it
16:01:12 [Zakim]
16:01:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.827.aabb
16:01:16 [Zakim]
16:01:18 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
16:01:22 [Zakim]
16:01:24 [aleecia]
are people not able to join the call, or not identified, or both?
16:01:39 [Zakim]
16:01:41 [ninjamarnau]
today not able to join, just reading IRC
16:01:42 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
16:01:42 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
16:01:47 [Zakim]
16:01:48 [aleecia]
thanks, Ninja
16:02:04 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:02:06 [aleecia]
and thank you to whomever just muted :-)
16:02:13 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
16:02:19 [Zakim]
16:02:19 [ifette]
Zakim, google has ifette
16:02:20 [Zakim]
+ifette; got it
16:02:31 [aleecia]
minus the spurious m that crept in there
16:02:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.642.aacc
16:02:37 [Zakim]
16:03:04 [aleecia]
ok, so long as people are making it on
16:03:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.985.aadd
16:03:18 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:03:29 [Zakim]
16:03:35 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:03:35 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
16:03:36 [schunter]
16:03:42 [CraigSpiezle]
CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt
16:03:44 [aleecia]
agenda 1
16:03:55 [aleecia]
16:03:56 [tlr]
zakim, take up agendum 1
16:04:01 [npdoty]
agenda is available here:
16:04:10 [Chris_IAB]
just joined via a blocked number
16:04:18 [schunter]
16:04:26 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Selection of scribe" taken up [from aleecia]
16:04:28 [Zakim]
16:04:32 [amyc]
i can scribe
16:04:38 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??P26 is probably Chris_IAB
16:04:38 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB?; got it
16:04:42 [amyc]
for first half
16:04:42 [aleecia]
Thanks, Amy!
16:04:51 [aleecia]
scribenick: amyc
16:04:51 [npdoty]
scribenick: amyc
16:05:03 [dwainberg]
I can take the 2nd half
16:05:07 [aleecia]
close agendum 1
16:05:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.369.aaee
16:05:18 [aleecia]
thanks, David!
16:05:19 [tlr]
zakim, take up next agendum
16:05:19 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Review of overdue action items:" taken up [from aleecia]
16:05:30 [tedleung]
zakim, aaee is tedleung
16:05:30 [Zakim]
+tedleung; got it
16:05:33 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:05:41 [amyc]
Matthias: going through agenda, overdue action items
16:06:02 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:06:03 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:06:05 [npdoty]
16:06:05 [trackbot]
ACTION-131 -- Roy Fielding to sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource -- due 2012-09-18 -- OPEN
16:06:05 [trackbot]
16:06:05 [Zakim]
16:06:26 [Zakim]
16:06:43 [aleecia]
16:06:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-245 -- Matthias Schunter to review spec for indicating service provider relationship (with singer and mayer) and propose changes if necessary -- due 2012-08-22 -- OPEN
16:06:43 [trackbot]
16:06:44 [npdoty]
fielding, do you have an estimated date?
16:06:48 [Zakim]
16:06:52 [Zakim]
16:06:56 [aleecia]
16:06:56 [trackbot]
ACTION-238 -- Matthias Schunter to follow-up re: David, regarding purposes of the WKR -- due 2012-08-22 -- OPEN
16:06:56 [trackbot]
16:07:06 [aleecia]
16:07:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-253 -- David Wainberg to propose dropping any tracking status value for None/Anonymous -- due 2012-09-12 -- OPEN
16:07:06 [trackbot]
16:07:19 [amyc]
Matthias: Roy not done yet, Matthias has not completed actions yet but have had discussions
16:07:21 [aleecia]
It's gone to the dlist
16:07:29 [aleecia]
I'll move to pending review
16:07:37 [amyc]
... David Wainberg has posted his action item to mailing list so moved to pending review
16:07:41 [aleecia]
16:07:41 [trackbot]
ACTION-251 -- Heather West to add DNT:0 definition and non-normative text to Compliance -- due 2012-09-12 -- OPEN
16:07:41 [trackbot]
16:07:43 [dsriedel]
dsriedel has joined #dnt
16:07:44 [vincent]
zakim, ??p28 is vincent
16:07:44 [Zakim]
+vincent; got it
16:07:49 [vincent]
zakim, mute me
16:07:49 [Zakim]
vincent should now be muted
16:07:50 [Zakim]
16:07:58 [colin]
colin has joined #dnt
16:08:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.207.619.aaff
16:08:01 [aleecia]
16:08:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-161 -- Shane Wiley to work on issue-49 -- due 2012-09-05 -- OPEN
16:08:01 [trackbot]
16:08:07 [amyc]
Matthias: Heather not on all, Nick to send reminder
16:08:17 [BerinSzoka]
BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
16:08:22 [fielding]
16:08:28 [aleecia]
zakim, close agendum 2
16:08:41 [amyc]
... concludes open actions, short list, thanks for work
16:08:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.508.655.aagg
16:08:45 [aleecia]
close agendum 2
16:08:46 [Zakim]
16:08:48 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Review of overdue action items:, closed
16:08:51 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
16:08:51 [Zakim]
I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:08:53 [Zakim]
3. Any comments on published minutes [from aleecia]
16:08:58 [tlr]
zakim, take up next agendum
16:08:59 [AN-NYC]
AN-NYC has joined #dnt
16:09:08 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
16:09:10 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Any comments on published minutes" taken up [from aleecia]
16:09:24 [ifette]
i can't understand what nick is saying, anyone else hearing bad connection?
16:09:25 [aleecia]
(Nick is not understandable)
16:09:37 [ifette]
still bad
16:09:38 [ifette]
16:09:50 [Zakim]
16:09:54 [amyc]
perhaps just update in IRC?
16:09:55 [aleecia]
close agendum 3
16:10:12 [Zakim]
16:10:12 [rigo]
zakim, who is here?
16:10:12 [aleecia]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:10:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia (muted), BrendanIAB?, Rigo (muted), damiano, dwainberg, cblouch, schunter, RichardWeaver, jeffwilson, Joanne, [Google], hober, +1.646.827.aabb, fielding,
16:10:13 [Zakim]
... vinay, [Mozilla], susanisrael, tl, +1.202.642.aacc, [Microsoft], +1.425.985.aadd, hefferjr, Chris_IAB?, ChrisPedigoOPA, FTC, vincent (muted), tedleung, +1.207.619.aaff,
16:10:13 [Zakim]
... +1.508.655.aagg, dsriedel (muted), Brooks
16:10:13 [npdoty]
minutes haven't gone through my cleanup process, but are all available from the home page
16:10:15 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:10:16 [Zakim]
[Google] has ifette
16:10:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia (muted), BrendanIAB?, Rigo (muted), damiano, dwainberg, cblouch, schunter, RichardWeaver, jeffwilson, Joanne, [Google], hober, +1.646.827.aabb, fielding,
16:10:19 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:10:21 [Zakim]
... vinay, [Mozilla], susanisrael, tl, +1.202.642.aacc, [Microsoft], +1.425.985.aadd, hefferjr, Chris_IAB?, ChrisPedigoOPA, FTC, vincent (muted), tedleung, +1.207.619.aaff,
16:10:24 [Zakim]
... +1.508.655.aagg, dsriedel (muted), Brooks
16:10:24 [amyc]
Matthias: asks Nick to describe what minutes have been updated, Nick to call back in
16:10:26 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
16:10:26 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:10:29 [Zakim]
[Google] has ifette
16:10:30 [Zakim]
aleecia should no longer be muted
16:10:44 [Zakim]
- +1.207.619.aaff
16:10:48 [Chris_IAB]
I'm on a private/blocked number
16:10:51 [aleecia]
sorry adam - which one?
16:10:56 [Zakim]
16:10:57 [AN-NYC]
646 number
16:10:57 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:11:15 [aleecia]
aacc is chrisOlsen
16:11:16 [susanisrael]
susan israel is on phone at 917 934 xxyy
16:11:17 [rigo]
zakim, unmute me
16:11:19 [Zakim]
Rigo should no longer be muted
16:11:21 [connect]
connect has joined #dnt
16:11:23 [BerinSzoka]
I'm on from 202---4246
16:11:24 [AN-NYC]
this is adam turkel, 646 number
16:11:26 [Brooks]
678.580 is Brooks
16:11:28 [amyc]
202 may be Chris Olsen, FTC
16:11:34 [rigo]
zakim, aacc is Chris_Olson
16:11:34 [Zakim]
+Chris_Olson; got it
16:11:34 [tlr]
zakim, aacc is chrisOlsen
16:11:36 [Zakim]
sorry, tlr, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
16:11:38 [henry]
henry has joined #dnt
16:11:58 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
16:12:06 [aleecia]
aacc is craig
16:12:12 [damiano]
i'm on google voice, not sure what my number is
16:12:12 [rigo]
zakim, aadd is craig
16:12:12 [Zakim]
+craig; got it
16:12:26 [schunter]
zakim, aadd is CraigSpiezle
16:12:26 [Zakim]
sorry, schunter, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
16:12:28 [aleecia]
16:12:48 [aleecia]
16:12:49 [rigo]
zakim, craig is really CraigSpiezle
16:12:49 [Zakim]
+CraigSpiezle; got it
16:13:11 [aleecia]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:13:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, BrendanIAB?, Rigo, damiano, dwainberg, cblouch, schunter, RichardWeaver, jeffwilson, Joanne, [Google], hober, +1.646.827.aabb, fielding, vinay,
16:13:14 [Zakim]
... [Mozilla], susanisrael, tl, Chris_Olson, [Microsoft], CraigSpiezle, hefferjr, Chris_IAB?, ChrisPedigoOPA, FTC, vincent (muted), tedleung, +1.508.655.aagg, dsriedel (muted),
16:13:14 [Zakim]
... Brooks, KevinT
16:13:14 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:13:14 [Zakim]
[Google] has ifette
16:13:22 [schunter]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:13:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, BrendanIAB?, Rigo, damiano, dwainberg, cblouch, schunter, RichardWeaver, jeffwilson, Joanne, [Google], hober, +1.646.827.aabb, fielding, vinay,
16:13:25 [Zakim]
... [Mozilla], susanisrael, tl, Chris_Olson, [Microsoft], CraigSpiezle, hefferjr, Chris_IAB?, ChrisPedigoOPA, FTC, vincent (muted), tedleung, +1.508.655.aagg, dsriedel (muted),
16:13:25 [Zakim]
... Brooks, KevinT
16:13:25 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:13:25 [Zakim]
[Google] has ifette
16:13:51 [amyc]
Matthias: appear to have identified everyone, still looking for 508
16:13:56 [aleecia]
16:14:51 [rigo]
zakim, aabb is Adam
16:14:52 [Zakim]
+Adam; got it
16:14:58 [Casey]
Casey has joined #dnt
16:15:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.413.230.aahh
16:15:05 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
16:15:05 [amyc]
Matthias: now everyone is identified
16:15:12 [aleecia]
close agendum 3
16:15:13 [npdoty]
Zakim, aahh is npdoty
16:15:13 [Zakim]
+npdoty; got it
16:15:35 [aleecia]
close agendum 4
16:15:44 [amyc]
... feedback on tripartite decision, input gathered, chairs tried to find decision with least justfied objections
16:16:08 [Zakim]
16:16:09 [amyc]
... published decision in URL in email, wants feedback on process, not substantive decision
16:16:12 [schunter]
16:16:15 [ifette]
Sorry, where was the result announced?
16:16:16 [ifette]
Not seeing it
16:16:31 [fielding]
16:16:33 [Chris_IAB]
I don't know that we all fully understand the proceedure
16:16:36 [sidstamm]
ifette, it was in a long email
16:16:37 [schunter]
16:16:40 [aleecia]
16:16:43 [ifette]
16:16:46 [ifette]
q+ for process
16:17:01 [schunter]
16:17:05 [Chris_IAB]
can you recap the procedure and how you came to a decision?
16:17:10 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:17:12 [tl]
Chris_IAB: You should double-check with the W3C governance documentation. It's pretty comprehensively described.
16:17:13 [aleecia]
ack fielding
16:17:21 [npdoty]
I could put together a page listing decisions in HTML, if that would be useful in finding/keeping track
16:17:30 [tl]
Repeating it here would waste almost everyone's time, Chris_IAB
16:17:35 [amyc]
Roy: no issues with quality of decision, but wants to speed up, probably about 50 critical issues to resolve
16:17:52 [amyc]
... before last call, need to do this fast, not months at a time
16:17:57 [aleecia]
ack ifette
16:17:57 [Zakim]
ifette, you wanted to discuss process
16:17:58 [susanisrael]
@npdoty-that would be helpful to list decisions
16:17:59 [ifette]
nick, np, i've been having email problems. I get 11,000 emails per day which apparently exposed a bug in the version of gmail that's on the test clusters
16:18:12 [aleecia]
oops - sorry, jumped the gun there
16:18:14 [ifette]
16:18:15 [ifette]
16:18:15 [ifette]
16:18:21 [schunter]
16:18:23 [aleecia]
thanks, Ian
16:18:32 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
16:18:43 [amyc]
Roy: more in parallel, faster and lighter weight, not so much focus on quality of response
16:18:57 [aleecia]
ack ifette
16:18:58 [amyc]
... would rather go back to revisit decision than wait for decision
16:18:59 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:19:12 [rigo]
q+ to say that we should not have textual options as this is just continuation of mailing-list in WBS
16:20:01 [amyc]
ifette: process was difficult because we may think that we know what acceptable options are, then get feedback from management that is not on menu of options, if trying to figure out what we could live with then we need a way to express concern and what we can live with
16:20:08 [schunter]
16:20:13 [amyc]
... rather than forcing into two options
16:20:23 [schunter]
ack rigo
16:20:23 [Zakim]
rigo, you wanted to say that we should not have textual options as this is just continuation of mailing-list in WBS
16:20:50 [amyc]
Rigo: large amount of text with last decision, how can we reduce without turning into voting?
16:20:57 [aleecia]
Hi Ian, we spent a fair bit of time in person reviewing those texts. We then had almost two months with them.
16:20:58 [bryan]
present +Bryan_Sullivan
16:21:01 [schunter]
16:21:21 [aleecia]
But what I hear is we need a more formal call for "this is the text, unless we hear otherwise"
16:21:37 [amyc]
Matthias: sometimes text responses were repetitive, but overall informative, about 5 pages of text
16:21:58 [fielding]
yes, it was informative and useful history -- but try doing 50 of those in three months
16:22:24 [amyc]
... this time took 2 days to consider, next time maybe half day
16:22:32 [schunter]
16:22:33 [amyc]
... but still adds up
16:22:46 [aleecia]
close agendum 5
16:22:49 [Zakim]
16:23:13 [adrianba]
zakim, mute me
16:23:13 [Zakim]
adrianba should now be muted
16:23:28 [ifette]
16:23:38 [amyc]
Matthias: ready to publish version as working draft? anything we cannot live with in order to publish as working draft
16:23:39 [tl]
+1 Matthias
16:23:51 [npdoty]
I believe we set that deadline last Wednesday, right?
16:23:54 [schunter]
16:23:55 [amyc]
... proposes deadline of next week
16:24:05 [Zakim]
16:24:13 [npdoty]
16:24:20 [Zakim]
16:24:22 [Zakim]
16:24:24 [schunter]
16:24:27 [hober]
Zakim, Apple is me
16:24:29 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
16:24:31 [Zakim]
16:24:32 [amyc]
... still marked as working draft with notes and open issues, not claiming consensus
16:24:33 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:24:50 [amyc]
ifette: fine with working draft, but how to resolve issues in working draft
16:25:22 [amyc]
... just got last decision (silence), but may need to create new issues, so questions whether there is progress?
16:25:28 [aleecia]
If someone would like an action for non-normative text, we're happy to hear that
16:25:42 [aleecia]
The issue itself is resolved at the normative level
16:25:52 [amyc]
Matthias: no, concern was creating undue bias through user agents, all sides found unacceptable
16:26:02 [aleecia]
But we may be able to provide best practices and guidance in non-normative text, should someone wish to take that on
16:26:24 [amyc]
... not a good idea to discuss between the lines, think about what issues to open, and tackle on mailing list
16:26:30 [amyc]
ifette: will create issue
16:26:34 [schunter]
16:26:43 [aleecia]
So: yes, the decision is set, but there may be ways to address concerns through non-norm means
16:26:52 [schunter]
ack npdoty
16:26:57 [BrendanIAB]
End of next tuesday, what timezone?
16:26:59 [amyc]
Matthias: end of next Tuesday ok to publish working drafts?
16:27:06 [aleecia]
That was on compliance
16:27:10 [amyc]
.. working draft of TPE
16:27:15 [aleecia]
Those comments are due today
16:27:23 [BerinSzoka]
I just got dropped from the call and have gotten an error message ("You have reached a non-working number") each time I tried to call back. Anyone else having this problem?
16:27:25 [amyc]
Nick: was there a call on this on email list?
16:27:32 [ifette]
ISSUE: How in the spec should we ensure user agents don't twist a user preference one way or another? (Text that biases user decisions, "express" work flows, etc). Related to outcome if ISSUE-149 and
16:27:32 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-163 - How in the spec should we ensure user agents don't twist a user preference one way or another? (Text that biases user decisions, "express" work flows, etc). Related to outcome if ISSUE-149 and ; please complete additional details at .
16:27:35 [dwainberg]
Nick -- I'd like the week to review
16:27:40 [amyc]
... sees that this was for compliance spec, not TPE
16:27:41 [dwainberg]
Yes, please
16:27:49 [Casey]
Yes Berin, I'm getting non-working number message as well.
16:27:50 [dwainberg]
call went out last week for same on TCS
16:27:57 [dwainberg]
another week on TPE is fair
16:27:58 [amyc]
Matthias: do we need more time?
16:28:14 [BerinSzoka]
skype info?
16:28:15 [amyc]
... acknowledges that participants want time to review,
16:28:31 [ifette]
Can we get a diff of what's going to be published vs previous working draft?
16:28:41 [amyc]
... so if no objections to publishing as working draft received by Tuesday evening, then will publish TPE as working draft
16:28:51 [fielding]
16:28:54 [ifette]
16:28:55 [aleecia]
16:28:59 [schunter]
16:29:09 [npdoty]
hi BerinSzoka, Casey, we know some people are having trouble calling in as it gets crowded, please do keep trying
16:29:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.310.aaii
16:29:16 [schunter]
16:29:26 [aleecia]
zakim, close agendum 6
16:29:26 [Zakim]
agendum 6, Publication of the TPE spec as working draft:, closed
16:29:28 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:29:28 [Zakim]
7. ISSUE 137: Service provider flag [from aleecia]
16:29:29 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:29:39 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.609.310.aaii (24%), dwainberg (9%), schunter (59%)
16:30:14 [amyc]
Matthias: discussed issue 137 in last call, had call with Tom and David on use cases being addressed with current draft
16:30:15 [aleecia]
16:30:23 [aleecia]
Tom's on IRC...
16:30:26 [ifette]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:30:28 [efelten_]
Zakim, aaii is me
16:30:28 [Zakim]
+efelten_; got it
16:30:28 [amyc]
... is tom on call?
16:30:37 [Zakim]
ifette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Rigo (9%), dwainberg (20%), schunter (39%), tl (14%)
16:30:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.612.554.aajj
16:30:42 [BerinSzoka]
so if we call in by skype, should we just dial the # or is there a way to do Skype-to-Skype?
16:30:51 [tl]
I am actually here, just didn't unmute fast enough.
16:30:58 [amyc]
Matthias: want to be able to use same party attribute, UA should be able to say that these 20 URLs form a party ...
16:31:00 [tl]
zakim, am I muted?
16:31:00 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, tl.
16:31:07 [tl]
zakim, unmute me
16:31:07 [Zakim]
tl was not muted, tl
16:31:10 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
16:31:10 [Zakim]
Rigo should now be muted
16:31:11 [aleecia]
16:31:13 [Zakim]
16:31:16 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:31:19 [laurengelman]
laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:31:26 [amyc]
... since service provider can declare themselves to be a first parties, for many first parties, may cause boundaries to blur
16:31:31 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:31:33 [rigo]
q+ to say that blurring is excluded by our service provider definition
16:31:59 [amyc]
Matthias: have not considered whether UA should be able to draw boundary around party, is this important use case?
16:31:59 [aleecia]
(we've heard from Jonathan and Ed Felten that Tom is not the only person interested)
16:32:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.310.392.aakk
16:32:18 [schunter]
16:32:20 [BrendanIAB]
16:32:21 [ifette]
added complexity, little benefit
16:32:23 [schunter]
ack rigo
16:32:23 [rigo]
ack ri
16:32:24 [Zakim]
rigo, you wanted to say that blurring is excluded by our service provider definition
16:32:25 [dwainberg]
Aleecia, I think they've raised a slightly different use case
16:32:25 [aleecia]
(and Jonathan is not on the call today)
16:32:35 [dwainberg]
(but they can speak for themselves, I suppose)
16:32:56 [johnsimpson]
zakim, 310-392-aakk is me
16:32:56 [Zakim]
sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named '310-392-aakk'
16:33:02 [amyc]
Rigo: just wrote before call to mailing list that issues 137 and X are related, definition of service provider, which is close to data processor
16:33:06 [npdoty]
Zakim, aakk is johnsimpson
16:33:06 [ifette]
zakim, aakk is johnsimpson
16:33:07 [Zakim]
+johnsimpson; got it
16:33:07 [aleecia]
zakim, aakk is johnsimpson
16:33:08 [Zakim]
sorry, ifette, I do not recognize a party named 'aakk'
16:33:11 [Zakim]
sorry, aleecia, I do not recognize a party named 'aakk'
16:33:14 [johnsimpson]
zakim, aakk is me
16:33:17 [Zakim]
sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named 'aakk'
16:33:18 [amyc]
... service provider has no independent right to collect data
16:33:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.643.aall
16:33:35 [hwest]
Zakim, aall is hwest
16:33:35 [Zakim]
+hwest; got it
16:33:37 [amyc]
... must separate via technical and organizational processes already
16:33:52 [Zakim]
16:34:02 [johnsimpson]
zakim, 310.392.aakk is me
16:34:02 [Zakim]
sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named '310.392.aakk'
16:34:06 [fielding]
16:34:14 [amyc]
... may be interesting to have this flag, but doesn't make a difference between 1 or S, already addressed with Issue 49 and COmpliance spec
16:34:15 [fielding]
16:34:22 [efelten_]
Zakim, aakk is johnsimpson
16:34:22 [Zakim]
sorry, efelten_, I do not recognize a party named 'aakk'
16:34:43 [Simon]
Simon has joined #dnt
16:34:45 [schunter] (says 1)
16:34:51 [johnsimpson]
zakim, +1.310.392.aakk is me
16:34:51 [Zakim]
sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named '+1.310.392.aakk'
16:34:57 [amyc]
Matthias: scenario is that service provider says "I am part of first party"
16:35:14 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #dnt
16:35:17 [amyc]
... but can be part of two first parties, so siloing is not visible to UA
16:35:19 [fielding]
16:35:26 [schunter]
16:35:34 [schunter]
ack BrendanIAB
16:35:37 [amyc]
... Tom may be concerned about combined data?
16:35:39 [ifette]
16:35:42 [Zakim]
16:35:50 [BerinSzoka]
that's me that just joined by skype--finally
16:36:01 [npdoty]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is BerinSzoka
16:36:01 [Zakim]
+BerinSzoka; got it
16:36:03 [Zakim]
16:36:06 [amyc]
Brendan: TPE should be focused on current interaction, not series of interactions
16:36:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.303.661.aamm
16:36:25 [tl]
BrendanIAB: But if the responses from multiple requests are inconsistent, we have a problem.
16:36:34 [amyc]
... should be talked about in Compliance, not TPE, just focused on one render, one transaction
16:36:43 [johnsimpson]
thanks, nick
16:36:51 [aleecia]
tom is also on the call
16:36:59 [amyc]
Matthias: tom on IRC, not on call
16:37:14 [schunter]
16:37:16 [npdoty]
BrendanIAB, I thought the question was just how to communicate a particular status technically, which would need to be in the TPE document
16:37:19 [amyc]
... in one transaction, SP is part of A, and in another transaction, SP is part of B
16:37:20 [schunter]
ack fielding
16:37:30 [tl]
I am also on the phone.
16:37:43 [schunter]
ok. I hope I stated your point of view correctly.
16:37:48 [Zakim]
16:37:49 [BrendanIAB]
npdoty - true, but the technical status relates to the current render.
16:37:50 [amyc]
Roy: two points, SP flag provides no useful information, would still be providing S on both sites
16:37:58 [aleecia]
This might be an easier discussion with text
16:38:11 [tl]
+1 aleecia
16:38:25 [aleecia]
Is anyone working to write text?
16:38:27 [schunter]
16:38:28 [amyc]
... secondly, problem that you are trying to solve is addressed by SP policy link clarifying which party it is responding for
16:38:41 [amyc]
Roy, please correct if I didn't get it
16:39:03 [rigo]
aleecia, I think the text is already in the compliance spec for once. But I don't see the TPE text
16:39:06 [tl]
That sounds like a requirement which would satisfy this use case.
16:39:09 [Zakim]
+ +aann
16:39:17 [amyc]
Matthias: policy link is mandatory for this scenario, is that right?
16:39:19 [schunter]
16:39:21 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:39:22 [amyc]
Roy: yes
16:39:24 [pedermagee]
pedermagee has joined #dnt
16:39:27 [tl]
But only if service providers are required to do so.
16:39:31 [npdoty]
and the policy field is mandatory in that particular case (where you are a service provider for some other first party)
16:39:45 [fielding]
The tracking status resource published by the service provider always distinguishes which first party controls the data
16:39:52 [tl]
Some user agents might be parsing it.
16:39:54 [schunter]
16:40:02 [tl]
Not all have to, but it must remain possible.
16:40:03 [amyc]
ifette: what do we want out of this? do we want UA to parse? If someone is worried, can still do investigation, added complexity without benefit
16:40:04 [aleecia]
(or plugins)
16:40:28 [fielding]
16:40:41 [amyc]
Matthias: need to determine whether actually acting as data processor, or is actually combining data across sites
16:40:56 [amyc]
Roy: how does that violate privacy?
16:41:12 [tl]
Privacy is about control of info. If I don't know where my info is going, I am not in control.
16:41:39 [tl]
In particular, if I can't tell where it is going, I can't have my user agent *not* send it to some of those places.
16:41:42 [ifette]
16:41:53 [fielding]
Yes, that is already addressed by the policy link
16:41:55 [amyc]
Matthias: scenario is if there is element that is intended for first party use, and first party element is embedded in site but is actually used as third party context, then will not follow third party rules
16:42:12 [Zakim]
16:42:16 [rigo]
I think such a behavior would violate the Spec anyway
16:42:19 [amyc]
Roy: addressed by policy link
16:42:22 [schunter]
16:42:22 [tl]
fielding: Only if the policy is *required*.
16:42:34 [schunter]
16:42:41 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:42:43 [amyc]
Matthias: confirms that policy link is required
16:42:45 [npdoty]
tl, `policy` is currently required for these cases (though not in general)
16:43:12 [fielding]
tl, it is required when sp is using domain not owned by first-party
16:43:34 [rigo]
16:43:35 [amyc]
ifette: scenario that you are worried about, this is already occurring because DNT will not be universally adopted, so there will be portions of sites that will not respond to DNT
16:43:52 [schunter]
16:43:58 [amyc]
... this is expression of preference, sites can;t and don't guarantee that everyone complies, this is corner case
16:43:59 [schunter]
ack rigo
16:44:21 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:44:24 [tl]
npdoty, fielding: So all service providers who use a domain not controlled by the first party must send the service provider flag, and use a TSR linking to the master domain, and must not claim to be the same party as the first party?
16:44:42 [ifette]
It's an expression of a preference. THe server may or may not respond
16:44:48 [fielding]
tl, no service provider flag is necessary
16:44:51 [amyc]
Rigo: in case someone accidentially in third party context, when in first party context, may have violated own feedback to user agent, already addressed by DNT
16:45:07 [amyc]
... just need right response back, don't need S
16:45:14 [npdoty]
ifette, the spec requires compliant servers to respond, per decision of the WG
16:45:23 [amyc]
... blurring border between first and third party, complicating semantics
16:45:35 [tl]
fielding: I can live with it if the flag is required, not otherwise.
16:46:01 [fielding]
tl, what flag?
16:46:09 [rigo]
I still maintain that it would be extremely useful for research and statistics
16:46:13 [amyc]
Matthias: would like to close this issue, unless tom comes up with scenario where policy link will not solve privacy concerns
16:46:14 [tl]
fielding: The service provider flag.
16:46:19 [tl]
zakim, unmute me
16:46:19 [Zakim]
tl was not muted, tl
16:46:26 [rigo]
responding "s" instead of "1"
16:47:00 [npdoty]
tl, does the `policy` field need to be required for all cases? or are you fine with just for cases where the service provider uses a different domain?
16:47:02 [amyc]
tl: fine if service provider not operating out of same domain, must use 1 or 3, and SP flag, and include policy
16:47:04 [mikeo]
mikeo has joined #dnt
16:47:22 [amyc]
fielding: doesn't want service provider flag
16:47:37 [aleecia]
That's not how this works, Roy
16:47:41 [amyc]
... this is recommendation, and parties that have to implement should decide issue
16:47:55 [amyc]
tl: this is designed to protect privacy
16:48:04 [fielding]
No privacy harm has been identified.
16:48:13 [amyc]
Matthias: not about group decisionmaking, this is consensus driven
16:48:29 [amyc]
... tom has said he does not need s flag under certain condiitions
16:48:41 [tl]
npdoty: I only need this requirement to apply when the service provider is not on a subdomain of the party for which they operate.
16:48:42 [aleecia]
The Do Not Call list has no privacy harm and still exists to give people control. Even if you cannot see harm, that's hardly the metric.
16:48:44 [rigo]
we need text + action
16:48:49 [amyc]
... just need to make sure that conditions are specified in spec
16:48:50 [rigo]
can Tom suggest?
16:49:10 [aleecia]
Or rather, has no marginal privacy benefit.
16:49:27 [amyc]
tl: if not operating out of domain of first party, must include 1 or 3, and s flag, and tracking status policy link
16:49:39 [amyc]
Rigo: why need sp flag?
16:49:41 [npdoty]
tl, can you accomplish the same goals just without the 's' flag, but with the 'policy' statement?
16:49:58 [amyc]
... legally and materially these are same parties, they are data processor
16:50:18 [amyc]
tl: not same party, important to me
16:50:23 [rigo]
I think this is a security thinking vs Privacy thinking issue
16:50:30 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
Seems like a lot of effort for very little benefit
16:50:43 [amyc]
Matthias: perhaps a candidate for decision-making process
16:50:44 [dwainberg]
tl -- I still don't get how it's important or how a user might act on that distinction.
16:50:52 [fielding]
unless it is *necessary* for privacy
16:51:01 [Zakim]
16:51:04 [dwainberg]
+1 Rigo
16:51:18 [npdoty]
fielding, are you comfortable with the policy field being required if it reveals the same information as the 's' flag would?
16:51:25 [amyc]
... don't see consensus that everyone can live with, will discuss with Aleecia to tackle as part of decision-making process
16:51:25 [tl]
+1 Matthias
16:51:26 [fielding]
16:51:27 [schunter]
16:51:35 [Zakim]
16:51:40 [amyc]
Rigo: may call Tom to discuss
16:51:46 [fielding]
npdoty, yes because the information is being revealed by the first party
16:51:46 [Zakim]
16:52:06 [amyc]
tl: don't think call will be helpful, should just move to call for objections process
16:52:10 [aleecia]
We have one proposal in the draft. We do not have a second proposal in text. We should have someone take an action for that.
16:52:17 [amyc]
Matthias: suggest talk to Rigo
16:52:28 [Zakim]
16:52:30 [Zakim]
16:52:43 [npdoty]
aleecia, we did have a version of the draft with the 's' flag already
16:52:57 [amyc]
Matthias: need text for s flag
16:53:09 [amyc]
tl: previously had text
16:53:10 [fielding]
the 's flag did not solve this use case
16:53:11 [aleecia]
Ok. So we copy & paste
16:53:18 [aleecia]
Thanks, Nick
16:53:32 [npdoty]
fielding, tl, so if we agree on the information revealed to the user, is the question just what flag/field is used?
16:53:43 [amyc]
dwainberg, want to switch scribing as we move on?
16:53:53 [dwainberg]
yes, amy
16:54:01 [aleecia]
If that takes you 15 minutes, that seems like time well spent
16:54:06 [amyc]
tl: will double check text and will submit to chairs again to go through process
16:54:07 [dwainberg]
scribenick dwainberg
16:54:08 [amyc]
16:54:13 [npdoty]
scribenick: dwainberg
16:54:19 [dwainberg]
thanks, nick
16:54:19 [Zakim]
16:54:23 [aleecia]
thank you, Amy and David, for the smoothest handoff ever
16:54:39 [dwainberg]
schunter: who's going to take an action?
16:54:47 [Bryan]
Bryan has joined #dnt
16:54:55 [tl]
16:54:59 [aleecia]
16:55:01 [fielding]
one CP is "no change to current draft"
16:55:04 [dwainberg]
... aleecia and schunter will develop a text proposal, then take comments, and w/ agreement those are the right proposals we go ahead.
16:55:25 [schunter]
16:55:27 [Zakim]
16:55:27 [Zakim]
16:55:28 [aleecia]
Tom, I do suggest you speak with Rigo in parallel -- not holding things up -- to see if there's anything useful there for either of you
16:55:48 [aleecia]
understood, Roy
16:56:01 [fielding]
We still haven't asked the question of whether same-party is required
16:56:03 [tl]
rigo: Email me to set up a time to speak.
16:56:05 [schunter]
16:56:06 [dwainberg]
schunter: anything else on issue-137?
16:56:09 [rigo]
16:56:11 [npdoty]
action: matthias to prepare text options for a potential Call for Objections on service providers
16:56:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-257 - Prepare text options for a potential Call for Objections on service providers [on Matthias Schunter - due 2012-09-26].
16:56:18 [dwainberg]
... (none heard) assume we're done with 137
16:56:25 [dwainberg]
... next is 116
16:56:26 [aleecia]
close agendum 7
16:56:35 [schunter]
16:56:40 [tl]
We still haven't discussed whether same-party is required.
16:56:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.318.aaoo
16:57:18 [dwainberg]
... on requiring same party
16:57:40 [dwainberg]
... websites can declare they belong to the same party, e.g. Lotus and IBM
16:58:03 [ifette]
this notion of "UAs being confused" confuses me
16:58:05 [dwainberg]
... this is beneficial otherwise UAs may be confused if elements on different URLS say they are intended for 1st party use.
16:58:10 [ifette]
that we expect UAs to do anything with this info
16:58:12 [tl]
Suggestion: "SHOULD"
16:58:14 [dwainberg]
... currently optional
16:58:17 [ifette]
UA conveys the user preference and then gets out of the way...
16:58:37 [ifette]
(we are overcomplicating it)
16:58:39 [ifette]
16:58:44 [npdoty]
we talked about this once as a separate well-known location with a text file list, fwiw
16:58:50 [dwainberg]
... question is whether it's ok
16:58:54 [schunter]
16:58:55 [ifette]
16:58:57 [dwainberg]
... or whether we mandate
16:59:00 [tl]
+q to suggest that sites SHOULD specify it.
16:59:07 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:59:40 [schunter]
16:59:43 [dwainberg]
ifette: we're overcomplicating by added these cases that are secondary
16:59:48 [schunter]
ack tl
16:59:48 [Zakim]
tl, you wanted to suggest that sites SHOULD specify it.
16:59:51 [fielding]
In other words, this would allow the UA to confirm that a first-party believes some non-FP domain to be part of their FP/SP group
16:59:52 [Zakim]
16:59:54 [Zakim]
16:59:56 [ifette]
apologies, conflicting meeting
16:59:57 [adrianba]
+1 on ian's point
16:59:59 [Zakim]
17:00:05 [fielding]
still no sound from tl
17:00:06 [npdoty]
17:00:08 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
+1 to Ian's point
17:00:09 [aleecia]
17:00:12 [schunter]
ack tl
17:00:17 [aleecia]
17:00:21 [Zakim]
17:00:32 [Zakim]
17:00:41 [dwainberg]
tl: disagrees w/ ifette. UA's may be able to do useful things for their users.
17:00:44 [laurengelman]
+1 to Tom
17:01:05 [npdoty]
tl, useful to have a response (we already have group agreement on that), but is this field necessary for that response?
17:01:06 [dwainberg]
... think this should be a SHOULD
17:01:19 [adrianba]
for all practical purposes MUST == SHOULD - i don't think it should be SHOULD
17:01:19 [Zakim]
17:01:21 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
17:01:24 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
17:01:27 [dwainberg]
17:01:31 [schunter]
17:01:38 [schunter]
ack ChrisPed
17:01:39 [rigo]
I think the response is crucial as it determines whether a service is telling the right thing
17:02:04 [dwainberg]
ChrisPedigoOPA: why do we need this?
17:02:33 [dwainberg]
tl: example. first party hosts resources on a bunch of domains. also embed resources from other parties.
17:02:39 [Zakim]
17:02:42 [schunter]
17:02:46 [BerinSzoka]
I just joined by phone
17:02:58 [Zakim]
17:03:05 [dwainberg]
... now users see requests to a bunch of different domains and UA cannot tell which are 1st party and which are wrongly claiming 1st party.
17:03:28 [dwainberg]
ChrisPedigoOPA: so this is a case where parties are wrongly claiming 1st?
17:03:36 [Zakim]
17:03:44 [schunter]
goal: legitimate first parties that belong to each other join themselves into one same-party.
17:03:53 [schunter]
This allows singling out the illegitimate first parties.
17:04:10 [adrianba]
17:04:12 [adrianba]
17:04:24 [dwainberg]
ChrisPedigoOPA: what about pages w/ 2 first parties?
17:04:36 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
17:04:37 [dwainberg]
... think this adds a level of complexity...
17:04:39 [npdoty]
I think I would be supportive of "MAY" and then we can provide incentives where it would be useful for a first party to list that info
17:04:39 [schunter]
17:04:43 [schunter]
ack dw
17:04:50 [dsriedel]
naive question: isnt the domain entered in the browser URL field the first party?
17:04:54 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
17:05:25 [dsriedel]
and that domain delivers well-known with its other servers, like CDNs, etc. to claim them: under 1st-party umbrella?
17:05:36 [Zakim]
17:05:39 [npdoty]
dwainberg: agree with ian, as complicated feedback (like p3p) for the user agent, beyond what we're trying to do here, and too difficult to implement
17:05:48 [npdoty]
... and SHOULD would also be strong, so would like to avoid it
17:05:49 [schunter]
17:05:51 [schunter]
ack ad
17:05:51 [rigo]
the misunderstanding is that Tom thinks that being outsourcer to two first parties allows them to combine and correlate, but 3.4 said they can NOT. So they are two siloed outsourcers for two first parties
17:05:54 [npdoty]
scribenick: dwainberg
17:05:59 [dwainberg]
thanks, nick
17:06:06 [tl]
Assertion: SHOULD != MUST
17:06:35 [fielding]
rigo, which is why outsourcing should be inside the definition of party
17:06:57 [dwainberg]
adrianba: eg, a marketing website on a new domain for a short period of time, it's impractical to go to other dozens or hundreds of sites and add a new temp domain.
17:07:11 [tl]
Large companies which have lots of sites have the option of non-including this info. However, the user-agent implementation will likely determine whether it's worthwhile for them.
17:07:14 [KevinT]
KevinT has left #dnt
17:07:15 [schunter]
I personally believe that user agents may use heuristics to identify "illegitimate" first parties. If this pain is sufficient, large 1st parties will have sufficient incentive to declare same-party. No need to mandate it here.
17:07:17 [amyc]
17:07:18 [schunter]
17:07:24 [schunter]
ack amyc
17:07:34 [Zakim]
17:07:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.888.aapp
17:07:48 [adrianba]
zakim, mute me
17:07:48 [Zakim]
adrianba should now be muted
17:07:54 [dwainberg]
amyc: thought we'd walked through this. we're back into the conversation about what is a first party.
17:08:04 [dwainberg]
... thought we'd come to a reasonable complication.
17:08:08 [rigo]
+1 to AmyC
17:08:26 [tedleung]
+1 to amyc
17:08:27 [meme]
meme has joined #dnt
17:08:29 [dwainberg]
17:08:36 [dwainberg]
17:08:45 [npdoty]
I think this is just a discussion of whether the party breadth is signaled, not a change to the agreement in compliance about what the breadth is
17:08:59 [dwainberg]
schunter: take is that most people want to go as simple as possible. if in doubt, take the simple version.
17:09:19 [efelten_]
Wasn't the definition of party breadth based on an understanding that the affiliation would be easily discoverable?
17:09:28 [dwainberg]
... leave spec as it is, with same party attribute, but not mandated. is this ok?
17:09:34 [efelten_]
Or at least discoverable?
17:09:44 [dwainberg]
tl: I keep saying there are UA implementations that make good use of this information.
17:10:03 [amyc]
yes, efelten, I agee
17:10:05 [npdoty]
efelten_, yes, I think "easily discoverable" was the rough agreement, this would be one particular way to accomplish that
17:10:27 [dwainberg]
schunter: other supporters of this?
17:10:44 [npdoty]
are there other supporters of making this attribute should/must?
17:10:56 [aleecia]
Not a group member, but I believe Jonathan also agreed and is not on this call
17:11:04 [amyc]
I'm concerned that this mandates a specific implementation, and that if one site is not on the "should" list then it falls outside of party definition
17:11:07 [fielding]
I think there is a use for it, but not one that justifies the cost of a mandate (SHOULD is still a mandate)
17:11:09 [Zakim]
17:11:11 [rigo]
if the user agent interferes with data processors, they actually interfere with the data controller's relations and tooling that goes WAY beyond the EU Directive
17:11:21 [dwainberg]
schunter: it's signal-able, but do we want to force sites to use it?
17:11:41 [efelten_]
If we make technical changes that make affiliation no longer discoverable, that could be entangled with the past discussion.
17:11:46 [dwainberg]
who's speaking?
17:11:56 [rigo]
zakim, who is making noise
17:11:56 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', rigo
17:11:58 [npdoty]
laurengelman is speaking, though I'm having trouble hearing
17:11:59 [Zakim]
17:11:59 [rigo]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:12:10 [Zakim]
rigo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P4 (9%), hwest (20%), schunter (69%)
17:12:13 [dwainberg]
laurengelman: if we don't mandate the signal no one will implement.
17:12:44 [fielding]
efelten_, it is still discoverable via the domain names -- it is related to the automatable solution that tl wants for boundaries
17:12:46 [aleecia]
What is the idea for "discoverable" without this -- buried in a privacy policy?
17:13:12 [amyc]
Aleecia, that's a bit pejorative
17:13:35 [aleecia]
"privacy policy" is, in and of itself, buried :-)
17:13:43 [dwainberg]
schunter: as an alternative to mandating the flag, we could say it's ok for UA's to use a procedure to do this.
17:13:44 [npdoty]
I don't think we have agreement yet on what counts as precisely discoverable enough
17:13:46 [aleecia]
I'm sure you have good stats on how many people read them
17:13:59 [dwainberg]
... would this be a good way forward?
17:14:07 [amyc]
I think that there are many ways that the affiliates could be discoverable, and there may be wayts to innovate in terms of making easily discoverable, without requiring machine readable list of all URLs
17:14:22 [aleecia]
Great, what would that look like?
17:14:33 [amyc]
that's UI :-)
17:14:47 [dwainberg]
schunter: "should" language is strong language in the spec, if possible you have to implement it
17:14:53 [aleecia]
How do we get to a UI without something machine readable?
17:15:07 [dwainberg]
tl: I am using should as in RFC, a recommended component
17:15:12 [npdoty]
can we have tl propose something on the mailing list? if there's other support, we can talk more, if not, we can close this and note any objections
17:15:16 [fielding]
SHOULD means you must do this unless you encounter a situation we did not describe that overwhelms the rationale for doing it
17:15:20 [dwainberg]
schunter: don't see a way forward
17:15:25 [dwainberg]
17:15:36 [npdoty]
17:15:40 [schunter]
17:15:45 [schunter]
ack dwainberg
17:15:48 [BrendanIAB]
should This word, or the adjective "recommended", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
17:15:59 [laurengelman]
I agree that I don't see how you are calling it discoverable without a signal of what "it" is
17:16:00 [BrendanIAB]
That's from RFC 2119
17:16:08 [Zakim]
17:16:19 [tl]
Thank you BrendanIAB, that is exactly what I mean.
17:16:22 [fielding]
17:16:24 [schunter]
17:16:53 [laurengelman]
easily discoverable is key to the whole definition of first party as "brand" based
17:17:07 [rigo]
tom, would it be sufficient if you will only consider a party a service provider to the 1st party if it is enumerated in the same-party definition?
17:17:43 [aleecia]
Rigo I don't follow what you're suggesting?
17:17:49 [BrendanIAB]
17:18:06 [dwainberg]
schunter: thinks this is in scope, because it's about a message of a server responding to a preference
17:18:09 [aleecia]
We have service providers to both 3rd and 1st parties.
17:18:26 [dwainberg]
... procedurally, ideal outcome is where we get text we can all live with
17:18:41 [Zakim]
- +1.917.318.aaoo
17:18:44 [dwainberg]
... 2 people say they cannot live without this
17:18:45 [rigo]
I think the current text says one can claim being a service provider (in the sense of 3.4 of compliance) withtout being in the same-party declaration of the first party (top level domain)
17:19:00 [rigo]
this means people can make statements out of control of the first party
17:19:13 [aleecia]
Ah, I am starting to understand more
17:19:14 [rigo]
which is tricky, I admit
17:19:27 [dwainberg]
... if there are objections, "i cannot live w/ this text" we must address.
17:19:52 [rigo]
and one very simple addition would be to mandate same-party declarations by the first party and no "s" flag
17:19:52 [Zakim]
17:20:00 [schunter]
17:20:04 [schunter]
ack npdoty
17:20:09 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
17:20:30 [aleecia]
So basically you are saying first parties are responsible for their service providers, and can declare them?
17:20:32 [dwainberg]
npdoty: sometime if it's only one person prefers something else, chairs will say we basically have consensus here.
17:20:53 [aleecia]
And presumably third parties are responsible for their service providers too in that model…
17:20:58 [dwainberg]
... individuals can raise formal objections. Suggestion: Tom should write up why this should be and put it on the mailing list.
17:20:59 [rigo]
if a service provider claims to be a first party and the first party hasn't declared him, the browser should be cautious
17:21:11 [tl]
Can you create an action for me to write this out for the list, npdoty?
17:21:16 [schunter]
17:21:16 [dwainberg]
... we go through a process and if someone want to raise an objection...
17:21:23 [npdoty]
sure, tl!
17:21:24 [schunter]
ack Bren
17:21:38 [aleecia]
But if a service provider claims to be a third party and a third party (out of n third parties) hasn't declared, that is not information?
17:22:00 [dwainberg]
BrendanIAB: scope of this is enabling a validation mechanism to ensure parties claiming 1st party are.
17:22:24 [npdoty]
action: lowenthal to propose 'should' for same-party and why
17:22:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-258 - Propose 'should' for same-party and why [on Thomas Lowenthal - due 2012-09-26].
17:22:25 [rigo]
aleecia, if someone claims to be a third party, they are in hell anyway, so we shouldn't care :)
17:22:38 [aleecia]
not exactly no.
17:22:43 [aleecia]
(to rigo's point)
17:22:48 [schunter]
Proposal: If we add language that user agents MAY use an algorithm, this may incentivize the sites.
17:23:00 [npdoty]
agreed with BrendanIAB that we're only consider MAY/SHOULD, not MUST
17:23:08 [aleecia]
for example, someone doing financial auditing for a third party might be sharing data between that third party and themselves.
17:23:24 [aleecia]
without a service provider relationship that would not be allowed
17:23:25 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:23:47 [aleecia]
under a service provider relationship, that data remains siloed and that can work
17:24:03 [dwainberg]
BrendanIAB: we're deciding between MAY/SHOULD. UA developing tech would motivate sites, with MAY. With SHOULD sites would have to develop up front, whether or not UA use it.
17:24:08 [rigo]
aleecia: right!
17:24:52 [dwainberg]
tl: disagrees UA's can do whatever they want. the only way UA's can conclusively determine which parts of a site are 1st party, so would rely on sites to provide this documentation.
17:25:06 [aleecia]
…that's not the response I was expecting :-)
17:25:07 [dwainberg]
BrendanIAB: if sites don't provide, UA's can penalize sites.
17:25:18 [npdoty]
one interpretation of MAY would be that there might be user agents that would take advantage of it and that might encourage servers to document it
17:25:34 [dwainberg]
tl: don't like it
17:26:31 [npdoty]
"it would be really quite great if sites would do this" as an alternative to MAY/SHOULD/MUST :)
17:27:13 [laurengelman]
It's about incentives. This is a chicken and egg issue. If there is no critical mass of signals, there is no incentive to build.
17:27:26 [dwainberg]
schunter: could you live with that idea -- language saying UA may use a well defined algo for finding sites that illegally claim 1st party status.
17:28:10 [aleecia]
(tl, when you get a chance, perhaps you could fill in more than "don't like it" that was scribed)
17:29:00 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
17:29:04 [amyc]
17:29:05 [Zakim]
- +1.612.554.aajj
17:29:06 [dwainberg]
schunter: if we say there should be a should are there objections?
17:29:07 [adrianba]
17:29:09 [dwainberg]
17:29:14 [rigo]
why? Don't you want to control your services?
17:29:18 [Chapell]
17:29:22 [dwainberg]
I object to shoulds
17:29:31 [henry]
17:29:33 [efelten_]
Object to shoulds in general?
17:29:35 [tedleung]
17:29:46 [dwainberg]
schunter: for tl, do you see any way to phrase the text w/out a should?
17:30:07 [dwainberg]
tl: it sounds like we need to go through the chairs' procedure.
17:30:26 [npdoty]
we have an action item open for Tom, to see if we have support for the SHOULD approach
17:30:31 [tl]
In the event that I have a flash of brilliance, i shall be sure to share it.
17:30:52 [Zakim]
17:30:57 [rigo]
Chapell, you're forced to by compliance spec anyway, so why not give it a technical security?
17:31:00 [aleecia]
17:31:00 [npdoty]
17:31:04 [dwainberg]
schunter: tom has an action item, but if that doesn't work, we'll do the chairs' procedure
17:31:13 [aleecia]
17:31:18 [npdoty]
17:31:24 [rigo]
ack npdoty
17:31:34 [dwainberg]
npdoty: please register for the f2f before the end of the week
17:31:45 [Zakim]
- +1.303.661.aamm
17:32:01 [fielding]
I will not be at the F2F -- will try to be online/call
17:32:07 [dwainberg]
schunter: new participation policy: members and participants. anyone else contact chairs.
17:32:13 [johnsimpson]
Was there a decision on making TPE a puiblic draft?
17:32:24 [dwainberg]
observers must contact nick and the chairs
17:32:28 [Zakim]
17:32:34 [efelten_]
efelten_ has left #dnt
17:32:39 [Zakim]
17:32:40 [Zakim]
17:32:40 [Zakim]
- +aann
17:32:40 [Zakim]
17:32:42 [Zakim]
17:32:42 [Zakim]
17:32:42 [fielding]
johnsimpson, input will be on list, deadling next week
17:32:43 [Zakim]
17:32:44 [Zakim]
17:32:46 [Zakim]
17:32:48 [Zakim]
17:32:48 [npdoty]
yes, we're making sure it'll be possible to call in
17:32:49 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has left #dnt
17:32:50 [Zakim]
- +1.650.888.aapp
17:32:50 [tedleung]
tedleung has left #dnt
17:32:51 [npdoty]
17:32:51 [Zakim]
17:32:54 [Zakim]
17:32:55 [fielding]
17:32:56 [Zakim]
17:32:58 [Zakim]
17:33:00 [Zakim]
17:33:02 [Zakim]
17:33:04 [Zakim]
17:33:06 [Zakim]
- +1.508.655.aagg
17:33:08 [Zakim]
17:33:10 [Zakim]
17:33:12 [Zakim]
17:33:14 [Zakim]
17:33:16 [Zakim]
17:33:18 [Zakim]
17:33:20 [Zakim]
17:33:22 [Zakim]
17:33:24 [Zakim]
17:33:37 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:33:39 [Zakim]
17:33:46 [schunter]
17:34:26 [fielding]
zakim, list attendees?
17:34:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, fielding.
17:34:34 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:34:34 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aleecia, BrendanIAB?, Rigo, damiano, dwainberg, cblouch, schunter, RichardWeaver, +1.703.265.aaaa, Joanne, npdoty, jeffwilson, hober,
17:34:37 [fielding]
zakim, who attended?
17:34:38 [Zakim]
... +1.646.827.aabb, fielding, vinay, sidstamm, susanisrael, tl, ifette, +1.202.642.aacc, [Microsoft], +1.425.985.aadd, hefferjr, Chris_IAB?, +1.206.369.aaee, tedleung,
17:34:38 [Zakim]
... ChrisPedigoOPA, FTC, vincent, +1.207.619.aaff, +1.508.655.aagg, dsriedel, Brooks, KevinT, Chris_Olson, CraigSpiezle, Adam, +1.413.230.aahh, Bryan_Sullivan, adrianba,
17:34:41 [Zakim]
... +1.609.310.aaii, efelten_, +1.612.554.aajj, +1.310.392.aakk, johnsimpson, +1.202.643.aall, hwest, Lee, BerinSzoka, +1.303.661.aamm, +aann, +1.917.318.aaoo, +1.650.888.aapp,
17:34:41 [Zakim]
... [IPcaller]
17:34:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, fielding.
17:34:44 [npdoty]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:34:48 [npdoty]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:34:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:52:26 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
17:56:03 [Zakim]
17:58:44 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
18:01:42 [Zakim]
18:02:00 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #dnt
18:06:42 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, efelten_, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
18:06:44 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:06:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were aleecia, BrendanIAB?, Rigo, damiano, dwainberg, cblouch, schunter, RichardWeaver, +1.703.265.aaaa, Joanne, npdoty, jeffwilson, hober, +1.646.827.aabb, fielding,
18:06:44 [Zakim]
... vinay, sidstamm, susanisrael, tl, ifette, +1.202.642.aacc, [Microsoft], +1.425.985.aadd, hefferjr, Chris_IAB?, +1.206.369.aaee, tedleung, ChrisPedigoOPA, FTC, vincent,
18:06:45 [Zakim]
... +1.207.619.aaff, +1.508.655.aagg, dsriedel, Brooks, KevinT, Chris_Olson, CraigSpiezle, Adam, +1.413.230.aahh, Bryan_Sullivan, adrianba, +1.609.310.aaii, efelten_,
18:06:49 [Zakim]
... +1.612.554.aajj, +1.310.392.aakk, johnsimpson, +1.202.643.aall, hwest, Lee, BerinSzoka, +1.303.661.aamm, +aann, +1.917.318.aaoo, +1.650.888.aapp, [IPcaller]
18:07:23 [fielding]
fielding has left #dnt
18:16:04 [rigo]
rigo has left #dnt
18:16:19 [mamund]
mamund has joined #dnt
18:20:37 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
18:26:59 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
18:57:26 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
19:33:41 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
20:09:16 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
20:24:02 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
20:49:03 [tl1]
tl1 has joined #dnt
21:03:10 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
22:09:40 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
23:07:19 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
23:35:59 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
23:37:08 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #dnt