16:44:41 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 16:44:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/05-dnt-irc 16:44:52 Zakim, this will be 87225 16:44:52 ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes 16:45:07 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference 16:45:13 Chair: schunter 16:45:49 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Dec/0025.html 16:45:53 Zakim, agenda? 16:45:53 I see nothing on the agenda 16:49:21 samsilberman has joined #dnt 16:49:37 moneill2 has joined #dnt 16:50:48 adrianba has joined #dnt 16:51:22 agenda+ selection of scribe 16:52:04 agenda+ overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner 16:52:17 agenda+ callers identified 16:52:17 rigo has joined #dnt 16:52:36 agenda+ exceptions revision http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Dec/0005.html 16:53:04 agenda+ ISSUES marked PENDING REVIEW 16:53:59 agenda+ ISSUES marked OPEN 16:55:30 dwainberg has joined #dnt 16:55:51 James_BlueCava has joined #dnt 16:55:54 npdoty: is it correct that no agenda was sent on-list? 16:56:00 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 16:56:12 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 16:56:13 rvaneijk1 has joined #dnt 16:56:24 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started 16:56:32 +[IPcaller] 16:56:32 Walter, agenda was sent by Matthias: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Dec/0025.html 16:56:40 npdoty: never mind, seem to have overlooked it 16:56:42 thanks 16:56:43 +dsinger 16:56:45 +npdoty 16:56:45 zakim, IPcaller is dwainberg 16:56:46 +dwainberg; got it 16:57:05 zakim, code? 16:57:05 the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), rigo 16:57:08 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 16:57:13 zakim, mute dsinger 16:57:13 dsinger should now be muted 16:57:42 +Rigo 16:57:45 Joanne has joined #DNT 16:57:49 zakim, mute me 16:57:49 Rigo should now be muted 16:57:59 peterswire has joined #dnt 16:58:11 Dave got the early bus to be in time but has spent all that extra time and more in traffic jams :-( 16:58:28 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 16:58:33 + +1.917.934.aaaa 16:58:35 +[IPcaller] 16:58:48 + +1.202.331.aabb 16:58:50 +Peter 16:58:55 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:58:56 +moneill2; got it 16:58:59 susanisrael has joined #dnt 16:59:14 + +1.415.520.aacc 16:59:20 peter-4As has joined #dnt 16:59:25 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:59:25 On the phone I see dwainberg, dsinger (muted), npdoty, Rigo (muted), moneill2, +1.917.934.aaaa, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, +1.415.520.aacc 16:59:30 jchester2 has joined #dnt 16:59:32 + +1.408.674.aadd 16:59:37 + +1.781.482.aaee 16:59:51 Zakim. aacc is me 16:59:59 +jchester2 17:00:01 zakim, aaee is samsilberman 17:00:01 +samsilberman; got it 17:00:02 917.934.xxxx is susanisrael 17:00:04 Zakim, aadd is aleecia 17:00:05 +aleecia; got it 17:00:06 zakim, mute me 17:00:06 jchester2 should now be muted 17:00:09 Zakim, aacc is Joanne 17:00:09 +Joanne; got it 17:00:15 BrendanIAB has joined #dnt 17:00:24 zakim aaaa is susanisrael 17:00:24 +[IPcaller] 17:00:38 + +1.202.296.aaff 17:00:39 Zakim, aaaa is susanisrael 17:00:39 +susanisrael; got it 17:00:41 Zakim, ipcaller is Walter 17:00:41 +Walter; got it 17:00:45 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:00:45 On the phone I see dwainberg, dsinger (muted), npdoty, Rigo (muted), moneill2, susanisrael, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, Joanne, aleecia, samsilberman, jchester2 (muted), Walter, 17:00:48 ... +1.202.296.aaff 17:00:53 vinay has joined #dnt 17:01:13 +David_McMillan 17:01:16 Zakim, aaff is Keith_ANA 17:01:17 +Keith_ANA; got it 17:01:18 Keith has joined #dnt 17:01:21 + +1.917.934.aagg 17:01:24 +??P69 17:01:27 +[FTC] 17:01:31 Zakim, ??P69 is schunter 17:01:31 +schunter; got it 17:01:35 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 17:01:35 JC has joined #DNT 17:01:42 zakim, aagg is vinay 17:01:43 +vinay; got it 17:01:46 + +1.301.351.aahh 17:01:50 BerinSzoka has joined #DNT 17:01:59 + +31.65.141.aaii 17:02:03 +[Microsoft] 17:02:05 zakim, aaii is me 17:02:05 +rvaneijk1; got it 17:02:08 zakim, [Microsoft] is me 17:02:08 +adrianba; got it 17:02:16 301 izakin, aahh is me 17:02:16 + +1.703.265.aajj 17:02:25 Yianni has joined #DNT 17:02:25 Zakim, aahh is dan_auerbach 17:02:26 +dan_auerbach; got it 17:02:30 hefferjr has joined #dnt 17:02:35 + +1.646.666.aakk 17:02:36 whoops, thanks 17:02:48 +[IPcaller] 17:02:57 Simon has joined #dnt 17:02:58 Zakim, IPcaller is probably me 17:02:58 +BrendanIAB?; got it 17:03:04 zakim, who is here? 17:03:04 On the phone I see dwainberg, dsinger (muted), npdoty, Rigo (muted), moneill2, susanisrael, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, Joanne, aleecia, samsilberman, jchester2 (muted), Walter, 17:03:08 ... Keith_ANA, David_McMillan, vinay, schunter (muted), [FTC], dan_auerbach, rvaneijk1, adrianba, +1.703.265.aajj, +1.646.666.aakk, BrendanIAB? 17:03:08 On IRC I see Simon, hefferjr, Yianni, BerinSzoka, JC, dan_auerbach, Keith, vinay, BrendanIAB, jchester2, peter-4As, susanisrael, ChrisPedigoOPA, peterswire, Joanne, dsinger__, 17:03:08 ... rvaneijk1, rvaneijk, James_BlueCava, dwainberg, rigo, adrianba 17:03:17 Brooks has joined #dnt 17:03:33 + +1.678.580.aall 17:03:48 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 17:03:50 + +1.303.661.aamm 17:03:55 bryan has joined #dnt 17:04:08 schunter: welcome, everybody 17:04:12 +??P91 17:04:24 ... sent around agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Dec/0025.html 17:04:27 Just joined via Skype 17:04:32 + +1.937.215.aann 17:04:33 ... thx to dwainberg for input, other comments on the agenda? 17:04:35 + +1.415.309.aaoo 17:04:39 Zakim, ??P91 is probably Chris_IAB 17:04:39 +Chris_IAB?; got it 17:04:47 +Bryan_Sullivan 17:04:48 Zakim, take up agendum 1 17:04:49 agendum 1. "selection of scribe" taken up [from npdoty] 17:04:52 volunteers to scribe? 17:05:03 aleecia_ has joined #dnt 17:05:06 zakim, pick a victim 17:05:06 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose npdoty 17:05:10 Can scribe if needed 17:05:22 + +1.813.366.aapp 17:05:27 scribenick: aleecia 17:05:32 +[Microsoft] 17:05:34 Zakim, take up agendum 2 17:05:34 agendum 2. "overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner" taken up [from npdoty] 17:05:39 zakim aapp is hefferjr 17:05:41 no! 17:05:47 heh :-) 17:05:49 jeffwilson has joined #dnt 17:05:53 zakim, aapp is hefferjr 17:05:53 +hefferjr; got it 17:05:55 hwest has joined #dnt 17:05:57 +hwest 17:06:01 It's about time Aleecia did some work! 17:06:10 matthias: overdue action items, compliance postponed. 17:06:28 + +1.202.344.aaqq 17:06:42 thanks Jeff, my boss at Stanford thinks so too! 17:06:43 afowler has joined #dnt 17:06:44 I would love if we could continue to make progress on those action items, though 17:06:57 matthias: TPE-related overdue actions, 323 17:07:03 David has joined #dnt 17:07:13 action-323? 17:07:13 ACTION-323 -- Thomas Lowenthal to share results of what-the-response-is-for discussion -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN 17:07:13 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/323 17:07:18 Action-323? 17:07:18 ACTION-323 -- Thomas Lowenthal to share results of what-the-response-is-for discussion -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN 17:07:18 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/323 17:07:18 that's done or not 17:07:21 just close it 17:07:30 just close it 17:07:41 it's notes from a meeting months ago 17:08:10 and i've reminded him ample times 17:08:19 tedleung has joined #dnt 17:08:24 time to go 17:08:46 Yes I was 17:08:51 are there volunteers for 258 or 323? 17:08:52 do either of you have notes? 17:08:58 I can't even find in the e-mail archive what it is about 17:09:00 issue-303? 17:09:00 ISSUE-303 does not exist 17:09:02 Let nick and I talk and we can resolve 17:09:07 action-303? 17:09:07 ACTION-303 -- Ian Fette to draft definition of "visit" -- due 2012-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:09:07 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/303 17:09:09 jmayer has joined #dnt 17:09:09 Chapell has joined #DNT 17:09:09 cOlsen has joined #dnt 17:09:11 Tell u next week 17:09:23 Assign away 17:09:35 nick: reassign 323 to one of us 17:09:37 Ok 17:09:44 matthias: reassigning to dsinger 17:09:58 matthias: next action-258 17:10:01 Lmastria-DAA has joined #dnt 17:10:03 action-258? 17:10:03 ACTION-258 -- Thomas Lowenthal to propose 'should' for same-party and why -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN 17:10:03 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/258 17:10:07 dsinger__: I hope you'll get an appropriate bonus from Apple, given the number of actions you've taken upon yourself 17:10:08 kj has joined #dnt 17:10:11 again, it's been long enough: just close it 17:10:15 WileyS has joined #dnt 17:10:26 having trouble getting into the call 17:10:29 unsure if others are too 17:10:33 (unless someone else wants to take it...) 17:10:40 jmayer: no problems here 17:10:42 jmayer, try again, took me a few tries 17:11:00 +1 aleecia to just drop it 17:11:02 ack ri 17:11:05 Jonathan, I've tried 6 times now and getting an "unable to complete your call message" 17:11:13 jmayer, took me a couple tries, but I'm hearing about reports of Zakim issues, and our team is looking into it 17:11:13 same here 17:11:15 redialed quite a few times, just rings then busy 17:11:23 rigo: had to do with transition permissions, same party and first party defns 17:11:31 i also cannot dial into the call 17:11:58 … if you believe you are a first party you must be in the party file, Tom wanted a should to rely on 17:12:06 someone at w3c may be able to expand the bridge to accomodate more callers. 17:12:06 Rigo perhaps would like this action item? 17:12:12 we're looking into the Zakim issue, it's not specific to our call. 17:12:15 "Your call can not be completed as dialed. Please check the number and dial again." 17:12:28 rigo: will take the action item and work with Tom 17:12:34 Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt 17:12:34 matthias: thanks, will reassign to rigo 17:12:38 276 17:12:40 zakim, call thomas-781 17:12:40 ok, tlr; the call is being made 17:12:46 … next action is 317 17:12:47 zakim, who is on the call? 17:12:47 On the phone I see dwainberg, dsinger (muted), npdoty, Rigo, moneill2, susanisrael, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, Joanne, aleecia, samsilberman, jchester2 (muted), Walter, Keith_ANA, 17:12:49 action-317? 17:12:49 ACTION-317 -- David Singer to draft non-normative examples on same-party (issue-164) -- due 2012-11-14 -- OPEN 17:12:49 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/317 17:12:50 ... David_McMillan, vinay, schunter, [FTC], dan_auerbach, rvaneijk1, adrianba, +1.703.265.aajj, +1.646.666.aakk, BrendanIAB?, +1.678.580.aall, +1.303.661.aamm, Chris_IAB?, 17:12:50 ... +1.937.215.aann, +1.415.309.aaoo, Bryan_Sullivan, hefferjr, [Microsoft], hwest, +1.202.344.aaqq 17:12:59 zakim, call thomas-781 17:12:59 ok, tlr; the call is being made 17:13:04 kulick has joined #dnt 17:13:06 zakim, unmute dsinger 17:13:06 dsinger should no longer be muted 17:13:11 matthias: david, progress? 17:13:19 dsinger: need one more week 17:13:24 mathias: ok 17:13:29 zakim, mute dsinger 17:13:29 dsinger should now be muted 17:13:37 zakim, unmute dsinger 17:13:37 dsinger should no longer be muted 17:13:42 nick: sent something to the list... 17:13:48 dsinger: maybe I did! 17:13:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0334.html 17:14:05 … yes, that should resolve the action item 17:14:15 (oops, sorry about colons not commas there) 17:14:25 tlr many are having trouble. can you help? 17:14:48 kaleecia, nick is on it. And trouble noted. 17:14:49 q+ 17:14:50 zakim, mute dsinger 17:14:50 dsinger should now be muted 17:14:58 + +1.408.349.aarr 17:15:00 matthias: caller id 17:15:07 Zakim, aarr is WileyS 17:15:07 +WileyS; got it 17:15:09 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:15:09 On the phone I see dwainberg, dsinger (muted), npdoty, Rigo, moneill2, susanisrael, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, Joanne, aleecia, samsilberman, jchester2 (muted), Walter, Keith_ANA, 17:15:09 ... David_McMillan, vinay, schunter, [FTC], dan_auerbach, rvaneijk1, adrianba, +1.703.265.aajj, +1.646.666.aakk, BrendanIAB?, +1.678.580.aall, +1.303.661.aamm, Chris_IAB?, 17:15:09 ... +1.937.215.aann, +1.415.309.aaoo, Bryan_Sullivan, hefferjr, [Microsoft], hwest, +1.202.344.aaqq, WileyS 17:15:13 rigo: mark 317 and 258 as related issues please? 17:15:28 zakim, aakk is chapell 17:15:28 +chapell; got it 17:15:30 matthias: can make a comment 17:15:37 nick: rigo, feel free to do so 17:15:38 +Jonathan_Mayer 17:15:50 missed the early issue discussion 17:15:59 jmayer just did overdue action items 17:16:05 + +1.408.349.aass 17:16:07 +[FTC.a] 17:16:07 Zakim, mute me 17:16:07 schunter should now be muted 17:16:08 looked like there was a tl assignment i was willing to pick up 17:16:19 +??P12 17:16:22 202 in Washington DC, correct? 17:16:23 678 is Brooks 17:16:26 same-party, iirc 17:16:30 I am area code 303 17:16:33 zakim, aajj is jeffwilson 17:16:33 +jeffwilson; got it 17:16:33 ah, that's likely the one Rigo took rather than the one dsinger took 17:16:35 laurengelman has joined #dnt 17:16:38 Zakim, aall is Brooks 17:16:38 +Brooks; got it 17:16:43 i just joined the call 17:16:44 Zakim, aamm is Simon 17:16:46 +Simon; got it 17:16:50 i just got through 202 326 17:16:55 I'm guessing one of the 202 numbers is Lou Mastria 17:16:55 Zakim, ??P12 is probably laurengelman 17:16:55 +laurengelman?; got it 17:17:10 Zakim, [FTC.a] is cOlsen 17:17:10 +cOlsen; got it 17:17:11 action-258 17:17:11 fyi: Jonathan: Action 323 has been picked up by David Singer and Action 258 by Rigo 17:17:15 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:17:15 On the phone I see dwainberg, dsinger (muted), npdoty, Rigo, moneill2, susanisrael, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, Joanne, aleecia, samsilberman, jchester2 (muted), Walter, Keith_ANA, 17:17:19 ... David_McMillan, vinay, schunter (muted), [FTC], dan_auerbach, rvaneijk1, adrianba, jeffwilson, chapell, BrendanIAB?, Brooks, Simon, Chris_IAB?, +1.937.215.aann, 17:17:19 ... +1.415.309.aaoo, Bryan_Sullivan, hefferjr, [Microsoft], hwest, +1.202.344.aaqq, WileyS, Jonathan_Mayer, +1.408.349.aass, cOlsen, laurengelman? 17:17:25 just lost all sound but the call seems still up 17:17:26 lmastria-DAA, are you dialed in from 202? 17:17:29 Zakim, aass is Kulick 17:17:30 +Kulick; got it 17:17:41 hwest has joined #dnt 17:17:45 415 is San Francisco 17:17:53 937 is New York 17:17:57 Yianni is 937 17:18:07 Zakim, aann is Yianni 17:18:07 +Yianni; got it 17:18:12 hwest, are you dialing in from 202? 17:18:18 + +1.206.664.aatt 17:18:27 415 is me 17:18:30 zakim aatt is tedleung 17:18:34 great--20 minutes on phone clearance... 17:18:38 Zakim, aaoo is afowler 17:18:38 +afowler; got it 17:18:46 there has to be a way to reduce time spent on this 17:19:04 Chris_IAB, I think I'm IDed already 17:19:05 maybe you could remind everyone what the procedure is in an email? 17:19:10 zakim, aatt is tedleung 17:19:10 +tedleung; got it 17:19:23 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 17:19:25 Zakim, drop aabb 17:19:26 +1.202.331.aabb is being disconnected 17:19:26 - +1.202.331.aabb 17:19:30 Zakim, mute me 17:19:30 schunter should now be muted 17:19:32 matthias: Peter to give comments 17:19:49 Zakim, drop aaqq 17:19:49 +1.202.344.aaqq is being disconnected 17:19:50 - +1.202.344.aaqq 17:20:04 peterswire: wrapping up semester in Ohio. Will be in DC next week and week out, would love to meet with people 17:20:12 got disconnected 17:20:13 … read 15 comments by deadline today, more since 17:20:17 + +1.310.392.aauu 17:20:35 … for week from today, will discuss those comments and walk around the virtual room to introduce people who haven't commented 17:20:47 … some people are very active, others are not as vocal 17:20:49 zakim aauu is johnsimpson 17:20:52 Also got disconnected. Trying again- 17:20:57 +[Apple] 17:20:57 -dsinger 17:20:58 … getting brief intros might be constructive 17:21:00 Lmastria-DAA, W3C staff could not identify your phone (202 area code) so you were dropped-- dial back in and type in IRC when you do 17:21:00 Lou, what number were you calling in on? You could have been one of the numbers that was unassigned and therrefore dropped. 17:21:05 … that's the call on the 12th 17:21:06 who is on call? 17:21:14 Zakim, who is on the call? 17:21:14 On the phone I see dwainberg, npdoty, Rigo, moneill2, susanisrael, Peter, Joanne, aleecia, samsilberman, jchester2 (muted), Walter, Keith_ANA, David_McMillan, vinay, schunter 17:21:17 ... (muted), [FTC], dan_auerbach, rvaneijk1, adrianba, jeffwilson, chapell, BrendanIAB?, Brooks, Simon, Chris_IAB?, Yianni, afowler, Bryan_Sullivan, hefferjr, [Microsoft], hwest, 17:21:17 ... WileyS, Jonathan_Mayer, Kulick, cOlsen, laurengelman?, tedleung, +1.310.392.aauu, [Apple] 17:21:22 … may not be a call on the 19th, but if we need to continue the call from the 12th we may 17:21:23 Zakim, aauu is johnsimpson 17:21:23 +johnsimpson; got it 17:21:36 … w3c staff & chairs are looking early / mid-feb for f2f 17:21:41 zakim, 392.aauu is me 17:21:41 sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named '392.aauu' 17:21:54 … possibly east coast of US, but not settled yet 17:21:56 can you please make that Florida? :) 17:22:22 we are trying to dial in, but conf line is not picking up 17:22:41 … two editors on compliance but began with four. if suggestions of names to add, people who can work in HTML, and can synthesize points coming in, open to considering 17:22:44 q? 17:22:45 Chris, any IAB members in Florida willing to give us the space for 3 days? The Yahoo! office in Miami is tiny so I won't be able to contribute. 17:22:48 q+ 17:22:48 Lmastria-DAA, keep trying 17:22:51 … if any questions, please ask now 17:22:55 ack rigo 17:22:56 + +1.202.331.aavv 17:23:03 + +1.202.344.aaww 17:23:17 Lou DAA and Mike IAB 17:23:26 Zakim, aavv is probably Lmastria-DAA 17:23:26 +Lmastria-DAA?; got it 17:23:34 Zakim, Lmastria-DAA has Mike_IAB 17:23:34 +Mike_IAB; got it 17:23:41 Zakim, aaww is probably peter-4As 17:23:41 +peter-4As?; got it 17:23:45 rigo: global considerations work on mailing list, also want f2f in Berlin or Brussels last week in Jan. task force, not official WG meeting, and anything the task force comes up with will go through WG review. 17:23:52 Rigo, can't your face-to-face be combined with the larger group's f2f? 17:23:53 how do I ask to speak next? 17:24:03 … week of 28 Jan, details TBD, Kimon is helping 17:24:08 q+ peterswire 17:24:17 peterswire: will be in Brussels 23 Jan 17:24:24 q+ 17:24:25 … will meet people while there 17:24:31 ack peterswire 17:24:38 peterswire, just type "q+" and it'll put you in line - if you have something immediately relevant, chair's discretion to just jump in once in a while! 17:24:43 eberkower has joined #dnt 17:24:46 … if we meet in eastern US, comment that Florida would be nice, but need a host. any volunteers welcome 17:24:48 Newfoundland is probably more productive though 17:24:49 q? 17:24:52 q? 17:24:57 zakim, mute me 17:24:57 Rigo should now be muted 17:24:59 ack Chris_IAB 17:25:00 ack Chris_IAB 17:25:14 Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt 17:25:30 chris: rigo, trying to understand need for a f2f separate from another f2f shortly thereafter? travel budget, time, resources troubling. 17:25:36 q+ 17:25:38 I assume Peter was simply saying he would be available to meet people in Europe in January when he's there anyway 17:25:41 … consider putting both meetings together 17:25:46 q? 17:25:52 … don't think it's possible to do two trips in that time 17:25:56 +1 17:25:59 +1 17:26:00 ack ri 17:26:01 ack rigo 17:26:03 when is the global considerations meeting? 17:26:09 Zakim, close the queue 17:26:09 ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed 17:26:17 responding to Berin -- yes, I am glad to meet f2f when I happen to be in Europe in late January with those interested 17:26:32 q? 17:26:33 rigo: we discussed this on the other mailing list, will have dial in. Goal of the mtg is to get DPAs involved, and we don't get them if we hold it on the east coast 17:26:49 will that meeting be timed to coincide with http://www.cpdpconferences.org/ 1/23-25? 17:26:50 matthias: for this set of meetings, may make sense to x-post to main mailing list 17:26:53 (in Brussels) 17:27:06 Zakim, take up agendum 4 17:27:06 agendum 4. "exceptions revision http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Dec/0005.html" taken up [from npdoty] 17:27:09 hwest has joined #dnt 17:27:11 Zakim, open the queue 17:27:11 ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open 17:27:26 matthias: next agenda item. dsinger's proposal 17:27:36 q+ 17:27:40 q+ 17:27:44 … should we put this into the spec as an option, and should we remove the other option? 17:27:59 efelten has joined #dnt 17:28:31 dsinger: Adrian proposed and Ian refined. Prior: sites must determine user is informed, and UA must confirm with the user that they intend to grant the exception. Asynch and awkward. Site no longer in control of messaging. 17:28:49 … Why not drop UA requirement, and make it clear sites need to get informed consent 17:28:59 … call is to *record* that 17:29:11 q+ 17:29:11 q? 17:29:13 … no direct discussion on this question since posting text to mailing list 17:29:19 + +1.609.310.aaxx 17:29:30 matthias: important point [dropped out] 17:29:46 schunter: still possible to check with the user ... 17:29:59 and modify 17:30:01 dsinger: UA can expose requests and what's recorded at any time 17:30:21 … still the API calls to provide info, and take user back to site if needed to understand what happened 17:30:25 q? 17:30:29 … still possible. Just not *required* 17:30:31 ack adrianba 17:30:50 adrian: reviewed changes 17:31:05 … this moves in the right direction 17:31:15 … especially based on feedback in AMS 17:31:19 rvaneijk has left #dnt 17:31:27 ack dwainberg 17:31:31 (I'm having trouble hearing, perhaps someone else should scribe?) 17:31:47 ack schunter 17:31:55 q? 17:32:01 dwainberg: jumping in to silence 17:32:11 adrianba: have minor issues, which we can talk about later 17:32:20 … want to make sure understand this, are we adding this draft in place of what's there, but still can discuss? 17:32:25 matthias: yes 17:32:29 dwainberg: ok 17:32:42 dsinger: is this an improvement? not is this final / perfect. 17:32:53 matthias: if general idea is worse than the old one, speak up 17:33:16 … if you still have things to modify, that's ok, but if you liked the required user interface then speak up 17:33:27 q? 17:33:30 q? 17:33:33 ack npdoty 17:33:37 … we can continue to work on the new approach if there's support 17:33:48 +1 to Nick 17:33:55 nick: confusion on user interface, neither has a requirement. 17:33:59 +Chris_Pedigo 17:34:06 … major change, making it synchronous rather than asynch 17:34:26 I like the paradigm of this as a accountability approach, recording a transaction 17:34:27 … moving expectation that the browser has confirmed / is responsible for (consent) 17:34:42 i agree with nick 17:34:51 … putting it all on the sites means 3rd party trackers need to second guess and hope 1st parties did good enough job 17:35:01 q? 17:35:02 q+ 17:35:04 This is the problematic required UI in the old draft: "The calls cause the following steps to occur: 17:35:04 First, the UA somehow confirms with the user that they agree to the grant of exception, if not already granted; 17:35:05 If they agree, then the UA adds to its local database one or more site-pair duplets [document-origin, target]; one or other of these may be a wild-card ("*");" 17:35:05 … small changes, which is great, but think this is going to be worse 17:35:14 (again, having trouble hearing) 17:35:22 (please fill in if anything is missing) 17:35:45 q? 17:35:51 ack adrianba 17:35:52 matthias: before, UA needed to make sure signal was in line with user preferences. new, parties need to make sure, and we do not specify how 17:36:07 adrian: does require UA to do some confirmation, and that's the key bit. 17:36:13 + +1.646.654.aayy 17:36:17 q+ 17:36:23 aayy is eberkower 17:36:25 … if we trust the site to honor DNT:1, we trust the site to do the appropriate thing for an exception 17:36:31 Zakim, aayy is eberkower 17:36:31 +eberkower; got it 17:36:36 matthias: ok. and on synch API? 17:36:53 adrian: considerably easier than an asynchronous API all around 17:37:19 … common case, UI from browser confirming user granted exception, then asynch is the right design. 17:37:35 q? 17:37:40 ack dsinger 17:37:50 … here the user can confirm or remove, but the common case is not to wait for confirmation through UA, so design with asynch 17:37:53 if a UA does want to confirm with the user, do they just keep the thread waiting? 17:38:33 q+ 17:38:38 q? 17:38:40 ack rigo 17:38:43 dsinger: UA can prompt to be sure, and configure UA to always say no without asking. but the small amount of time the exception is in the db is not worth making it asynch 17:38:55 … the question is if UAs are required to check with the user 17:39:03 Rigo: David, I'm with you. 17:39:19 … responsibility for notification and how stuff looks is with the site, everyone was happy. 17:39:24 not everybody was happy about that :) 17:39:32 … browser still has a function. user must be able to revoke. 17:39:44 David, why not go async and allow UAs to force order in a UI interface on their own if they like? The call is async but future DNT:0 header placements are still controlled by the UA. 17:39:45 … how does a site who thinks they have an exception find out if they still have it? 17:39:55 q+ 17:39:58 dsinger: API to answer that question. Call at any time to find out 17:39:59 q? 17:40:06 hwest has left #dnt 17:40:14 hwest has joined #dnt 17:40:29 matthias: site gets exception. user changes his mind or deletes it, UA will send DNT:1 again 17:40:39 … if site is very interested that nothing changed, can always call 17:40:43 … yes? 17:40:49 ack aba 17:40:55 ack adrianba 17:41:19 adrian: on waiting for exceptions that Rigo raised, feedback that draft with David is not sufficient for a site to (unclear) 17:41:38 … reason they might get DNT:0 is site-wide or web-wide exception, think that's necessary 17:41:44 … still work to do on query part 17:41:45 why does the party need to know if they got a site-wide or a web-wide exception? 17:41:46 q+ to point out text on requiring at-the-time consent 17:41:57 to know what their 3rd parties are likely to get 17:42:01 ack dsinger 17:42:01 dsinger, you wanted to point out text on requiring at-the-time consent 17:42:07 q? 17:42:22 dsinger: did insert text - don't want sites determine today, agree to exception, and then have it cached 17:42:29 q+ 17:42:44 … needs to be consent at the time of the call, not remembered from some time ago 17:42:48 ack WileyS 17:42:59 will take some additional comments offline 17:43:01 q? 17:43:02 Shane: agree mostly with David. out of band consent would be something to consider 17:43:23 … also registered as an exception, then user removes exception, do they also remove out-of-bound-consent? 17:43:32 Shane, that is the whole idea of a consent mechanism... 17:43:37 … becomes confusing to manage state in multiple locations 17:43:39 WileyS: I think this is rather a factual question and a state control thing 17:43:45 alternately, it's quite confusing for users if they have to clear an exception twice, once in their browser and once on the site 17:44:02 … agree on timing. Should be asynch. UAs can force ordering of UI confirmation. What rules the day is timing for header 17:44:07 +1, what rules in the end of the day is the header 17:44:15 … whatever comes back as DNT:1 or :0 is the order the server should follow 17:44:26 The headers are law :-) 17:44:28 … think we agree on that. Action based on that. 17:44:34 q? 17:44:41 dsinger: offline discussion, will talk more 17:44:53 schunter: propose adding text as unsettled option 17:44:57 If the header comes from a network device it may conflict with the user's preference from the UA 17:44:58 WileyS and dsinger to continue conversation online (I'm interested too!) 17:44:59 … objections? 17:45:04 -afowler 17:45:09 q+ 17:45:11 notes we need a discussion of out-of-band consent; the current document defines OOB consent as consent not signalled inline with a DNT header 17:45:19 … mark new text as work in progress, old text as stable, both as options 17:45:24 q? 17:45:25 q+ to object; I'd rather replace and move on 17:45:28 q+ to ask if the changes are small enough we can just mark options inline 17:45:32 ack adrianba 17:45:34 q+ 17:45:53 adrian: question to David, how feasible to include both options in document, does that require [mumble] 17:46:05 s/[mumble]/duplication/ 17:46:15 dsinger: lots of little changes would happen if we adopt. would rather do it and move on, can revert to prior text if needed 17:46:21 thank you nick 17:46:28 Agreed - please move to the new text now. 17:46:33 matthias: would like to replace with new text now 17:46:33 q+ 17:46:33 ack npdoty 17:46:34 npdoty, you wanted to ask if the changes are small enough we can just mark options inline 17:46:39 q- 17:46:46 ack dsinger 17:47:16 nick: agree there's duplication to have both options in the document. fine with updating with new text and adding notes around this. 17:47:29 … don't think we're making this decision now. if we are, would object. 17:47:37 I can certainly add notes, noting the old approach, and points where refinement may still be needed 17:47:48 matthias: ok to update but notes with contrast to old approach and pointer. 17:48:07 … good piece of advice, is that correct understanding to point to old version with changes highlighted? 17:48:13 I object to replacing the text right now. 17:48:14 q+ 17:48:17 nick: list of changes and that those are open questions. 17:48:20 ack jmayer 17:48:33 jmayer: good discussion on how new approach would work. better idea now. 17:48:51 … high-level discussion of whether the old approach was preferable. 17:48:57 … was missing. 17:49:15 … need more discussion 17:49:21 Can we take a straw vote / humm? I believe most in the WG would like to move to the new text. 17:49:29 matthias: in general, new approach if we can iron out the details 17:49:43 I disagree; there was clear geberal consensus to move in this direction, and no objection. people can still reflect and realize problems, of course 17:49:44 … if there are many people with strong objections on the new approach, would like to hear them 17:49:46 I think I've stated my objections a few times 17:49:54 ... but I'm happy to repeat them :) 17:50:06 … Nick prefers old approach, anyone else? 17:50:17 Nick and Jonathan - anyone else? 17:50:22 possibly -- need to see the details first :-) 17:50:25 yes I am inclined to agree with Nick 17:50:28 sorry call quality is bad 17:50:34 happy to let that work go forward, but not yet 100% sold 17:50:37 UAs can still optionally do that 17:50:43 jmayer: there were others concerned as well 17:50:59 … there were objections in the past 17:51:01 but I would need to be convinced further before taking the new approach over the old 17:51:14 aleecia_, are there details you're still missing, beyond David's written up text? 17:51:25 -jeffwilson 17:51:31 I think jmayer is right, as it is now it is hard to grasp the extent of this proposal 17:51:36 matthias: respond to David's email on the list, repeating: replace text and work on new text to try to improve it. then we see what objections and what arguments. 17:51:50 Walter, are there details you're still missing, beyond David's written up text? 17:51:51 q+ t 17:51:55 q- t 17:51:58 … Nick still has objections, but Jonathan didn't view as objecting but rather nothing objections exist 17:52:10 dan, the DPAs mainly say, it is the site's responsibility (they are the controller) and sites are object of enforcement. Browsers aren't. This is how this approach came about 17:52:16 If some advocates are okay with moving forward, all UAs, and all industry all want to go in the same direction, why are we still discussing this? 17:52:25 jmayer: concerned that if you don't agree you have to say so every single time it comes up, this is not a good mode of operation and very inefficient 17:52:34 +1 to concerns on how sustained objections work in practice 17:52:57 dsinger: do you object to the synch/asynch, or the moving responsibility? 17:53:03 for those policy people who are a bit lost, is there a short, accessible summary of this we can read? 17:53:05 nick: not sure there was such a requirement 17:53:08 npdoty: I have to see the text first, haven't found it yet 17:53:28 … my objections were to not being the browsers' responsibility as well as asynch 17:53:29 If I understand correctly, Nick is objecting on both issues. 17:53:37 I certainly object on both issues. 17:53:46 … sending DNT:0 is user, with browser's confirmation, is sending the signal 17:53:57 dsinger: substantial objection to new plan. thank you 17:54:06 And with that, back to the grind. Later all. 17:54:11 I have objected to using javascript, but am not sure whether it bears relevance to this suggestion 17:54:13 -Jonathan_Mayer 17:54:25 action: schunter to ask for any objections to the new exceptions model 17:54:25 Created ACTION-342 - Ask for any objections to the new exceptions model [on Matthias Schunter - due 2012-12-12]. 17:54:29 matthias: would like email to the dlist in the next week and see what arguments there are. 17:54:32 Berin, there is some disagreement on whether a UA MUST confirm exception requests or if they MAY confirm exception requests. 17:54:34 … next agenda item 17:54:36 Walter, this is a rather fundamental opposition to HTML5 :) 17:54:44 Zakim, take up agendum 5 17:54:44 agendum 5. "ISSUES marked PENDING REVIEW" taken up [from npdoty] 17:54:47 rigo: for the purpose of DNT, that is 17:54:49 -samsilberman 17:54:58 issue-112? 17:54:58 ISSUE-112 -- How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? -- pending review 17:54:58 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112 17:55:05 … issue-112, next up 17:55:13 and others 17:55:19 (have made the same point) 17:55:22 q+ 17:55:24 … point dwainberg made on mailing list is that agreement on a wildcard but not which ones 17:55:27 -Bryan_Sullivan 17:55:35 q+ 17:55:37 … do we have agreement, we should put into text 17:55:42 alas, I do not think we have worked out the public suffix issues 17:55:42 q- later 17:56:02 … site-wide exceptions do not need wildcards. 17:56:05 q+ to disagree that this is specific to explicit lists 17:56:17 dsinger, the DE outreach measurement goes as a subdomain, but is effectively a third party 17:56:19 … if explicit lists, enumerate all of them, or pattern matching, or other wild cards in this list? 17:56:21 q? 17:56:24 -dan_auerbach 17:56:27 ack adrianba 17:56:34 q- later 17:56:35 We appear to be okay with sub-domains for the most part. Less agreement on the use of wildcard on suffixes. 17:56:37 my summary of the issue was here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0327.html 17:56:40 -susanisrael 17:56:43 adrian: disagree that this is not an issue for site wide exceptions 17:56:53 Yes - we would need wildcards on site-wide and web-wide. 17:56:57 … requires site-wide API is explicit about subdomains 17:57:15 … if asking site-wide for www.example.com is mail.example.com a subdomain? 17:57:24 … need notion to know if that's true 17:57:45 q+ to point out that the question arises for both the top-level origin, and the targets, and matthias asked about the latter and adrian is talking about the former 17:58:03 … second, while have argued for explicit about domains rather than programatic way of saying a wildcard for subdomains, based on feedback accept this is desirable. 17:58:19 … in original proposal said at least use same rules for cookies to reuse code for UAs 17:58:30 Adrian now seconds the proposal to use cookie-like wildcards/rules. 17:58:37 ack npdoty 17:58:39 npdoty, you wanted to disagree that this is specific to explicit lists 17:58:45 Nick: easy to get confused on which section were are talking about 17:59:02 … for explicit list option, question is subdomains or wildcards 17:59:29 … should we expand the (first?) party when asking: you visited www.example.com should that apply to mail.example.com or example.de 17:59:46 … are you asking for example.com or a.example.com, b.example.com 17:59:48 thanks, Nick 18:00:00 … those are separate questions and in neither case do you need - 18:00:09 … does it apply to the exception-specific list. 18:00:16 … haven't heard that request for the backend 18:00:31 … would rather avoid using (?) which is confusing for (?) and instead use (?) 18:00:37 q? 18:00:45 q- later 18:00:50 … expanding first party case, or expanding third party exception 18:01:00 … good to add additional parameter, use case there 18:01:01 ack rigo 18:01:16 -- nick I missed much of that, sorry, really hard time hearing words clearly 18:01:16 http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P11/#oho 18:01:21 rigo: problem is not new 18:01:28 would rather avoid using the cookie matching rules, which we've long had problems with, and instead use document origins, which I thought we had agreement on previously 18:01:36 … URL pasted is from Matthias on domain relationships 18:02:06 … if we take cookie-based or origin-based, always have scenarios where notion of Service Provider 18:02:12 … have to extend the scope either way 18:02:14 +1 to nick 18:02:15 and I think there are ways that browsers/sites can already optionally handle the expansion to other domains in the same party, via the same-party parameter 18:02:21 … need a way to express that 18:02:33 … can use wildcard, or use same host, but we need something 18:02:38 same-party 18:02:40 q? 18:02:44 ack dsinger 18:02:44 dsinger, you wanted to point out that the question arises for both the top-level origin, and the targets, and matthias asked about the latter and adrian is talking about the former 18:02:53 dsinger: like Nick, want to make sure we don't confuse two things 18:03:02 and I think this isn't directly applicable to the site-specific explicit lists, but instead to the expansion of the first party or the expansion of the third party 18:03:04 … origin for making the call, primitive prior to the call, that's tricky 18:03:13 q+ 18:03:15 … or wildcarding for explicit parameters is pretty harmless 18:03:33 *.com should not be allowed 18:03:38 agree with dsinger that it's harmless, though I'm also not sure it's a commonly requested feature 18:03:39 … broaden it to entire web, fine, could have made it * completely 18:03:40 Root domain should always be required 18:03:45 … can already do that 18:04:14 … on the first parameter more tricky. if you want mail.example.com, need specific text proposal. want to avoid cookie matching rules 18:04:21 q? 18:04:22 q+ 18:04:22 things work like ivwbox.journal.de and this is a separate company, so just * doesn't work 18:04:32 … looking for specific text 18:04:35 WileyS, you're suggesting that we should use the public suffix and matching rules? and for the expansion of first party or for the domains in the explicit list of third parties? 18:04:37 q+ 18:04:50 matthias: proposed updates to the text, volunteers soon 18:04:55 ack adrianba 18:05:15 adrian: [unclear] 18:05:20 … was talking about both 18:05:30 trouble hearing adrian 18:05:31 … domain call is coming from, and also domain in array of site list 18:05:33 adrianba: talking about both things, the domain where the call is coming from and the domain in the array of sites list 18:05:41 http://pages.adrianba.net/tpe/exception-proposal.htm 18:05:43 ... separately don't think the array of sites is valuable for the API, a separate discussion 18:05:45 anyone who wants to freak, have a look at the length of the current public suffix list at 18:05:52 … proposal in original text that talks about how cookie matching works here 18:05:59 Rigo, agreed those companies shouldn't use wildcards if they have that type of structures where the sub-domain is used to denote different entities. But let's not remove it for those where it makes sense and does simplify the recording of exceptions. 18:06:19 exactly 18:06:20 … use case, system that allows me to create ad choices page with multiple exceptions given 18:06:27 want that in a single call 18:06:36 … dynamic within a particular domain 18:06:37 I believe we've agreed that this can be done, via iframes in the adchoices-style page 18:06:41 q? 18:06:48 we asked and answered that question in Amsterdam 18:06:48 WileyS, but in this case, I think "same-host" is where you want to go 18:07:00 ack aleecia_ 18:07:08 But how do I record "*.flickr.com" in that case? 18:07:16 ack aleecia_ 18:07:24 Rigo, but how do I record "*.flickr.com" in that case? 18:07:27 aleecia_: one of the reasons we hadn't just followed what browsers are doing now, is that we might have analytics.example.com 18:07:55 ack Walter 18:07:59 ... if I thought I was giving an exception to one party and actually gave it to multiple parties (if we think the analytics company might be a third-party to the interaction) 18:08:04 q? 18:08:13 Aleecia, Servers should not use wildcards in cases where the sub-domain represents different non-affiliated companies. 18:08:40 walter: clarification question, for my understanding what does this add on top of the same sites mechanism? 18:08:49 Shane so how would that work? 18:08:53 WileyS: just in same-party 18:08:57 nick: same party is what we're calling that field? 18:09:08 … [unclear] 18:09:10 kj has joined #dnt 18:09:15 … browser could optionally expand 18:09:22 … in js parameter [unclear] 18:09:29 (I couldn't understand what Nick just said) 18:09:30 can someone else hear? 18:09:31 q? 18:09:33 …is deeply unhappy about the API being asked to fetch-back from the site something else; if the UA needs it, it should be a parameter 18:09:34 and if so, scribe? 18:09:54 nick, your voip is bad 18:10:00 nick: the suggestion I made is same parties could be used for this purpose 18:10:12 … will send in IRC due to poor audio 18:10:15 q? 18:10:25 matthias: what do we do with this issue? 18:10:28 q+ 18:10:31 I think the browser could use `same-party` to expand the first party for this purpose 18:10:34 suggest we ask for specific proposed text changes 18:10:37 … what updates to current text, leave as is, postpone or close? 18:10:55 a) for * in the parameter and (b) for related sites to the calling party 18:10:56 … call for text proposals and if no one updates, we close the issue 18:11:01 q- 18:11:03 … vote through inactivity approach :-) 18:11:05 ... and the difference would be that the first party is asking through a specific javascript call 18:11:10 q+ 18:11:19 ack npdoty 18:11:19 Aleecia, you would simply state this rule in the TPE. Is that what you mean by "how does that work"? 18:11:39 nick: in my email did try. can flesh them out if that's helpful 18:11:47 I proposed changes here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0327.html 18:11:53 … can take an action 18:11:55 but can flesh them out into full text diff if that would be helpful 18:12:03 that would be great; "change this XX in section YY to ZZ" 18:12:07 Aleecia - remember, these exceptions are recorded so you have all the evidence in the world to dig into and bring back to the appropriate regulator (or press in a "name and shame" campaign) to enforce proper usage 18:12:15 matthias: right way forward is current spec, your text, any other changes? 18:12:25 I will propose text as well 18:12:33 action: doty to update issue-112 proposal with specific changes to the draft 18:12:33 Created ACTION-343 - Update issue-112 proposal with specific changes to the draft [on Nick Doty - due 2012-12-12]. 18:12:49 Shane I'm on with policy rather than tech as you suggest, so long as it's very clear. we might want * minus specific subdomains... 18:13:01 q? 18:13:02 matthias: if no input we discuss Nick's. 18:13:03 action: wainberg to propose changes for issue-112 18:13:03 Created ACTION-344 - Propose changes for issue-112 [on David Wainberg - due 2012-12-12]. 18:13:31 … otherwise we discuss multiple alternatives. Nick to take action to translate email into well-defined changes to the text. dwainberg too. 18:13:40 … closes issue-112 discussion 18:13:42 q? 18:14:03 nick, I updated tracker 18:14:08 matthias: issue-138 next 18:14:12 now related to issue 112 18:14:14 this was my non-normative text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0628.html 18:14:16 topic: issue-138 18:14:16 … Nick proposed non-normative text 18:14:31 Nick we can hear you fine 18:14:35 apologies, have to drop off call 18:14:41 nick, now very audible 18:14:42 -johnsimpson 18:14:52 nick: doesn't change requirements, just explains a party [mumble] user granted exception 18:15:03 q? 18:15:09 q+ 18:15:10 matthias: any objection to adding non-normative text to spec? 18:15:11 s/[mumble]/that doesn't have interactive javascript, like just drops a pixel/ 18:15:19 ack dwainberg 18:15:34 dwainberg: asked on mailing list, confused why we need this. 18:15:52 … concerned about adding text 18:15:58 … could be more confusing 18:16:03 q+ 18:16:06 … object to putting text in spec 18:16:20 matthias: came to be because what if only tracking [mumble] 18:16:32 … text to explain if only have a tracking pixel 18:16:38 q+ 18:16:43 … documentation for those who don't have javascript 18:16:49 originally from alex at nielsen, about trackers that don't have javascript, just drop a tracking pixel 18:16:50 dwainberg: 18:16:54 q? 18:16:55 … found it confusing 18:17:05 ack npdoty 18:17:06 … question on mailing list never answered 18:17:28 nick: intended to be explanatory. heard from Neilsen that they wanted examples 18:17:37 … worked with (Lee?) on this 18:17:48 … if you have more questions, happy to answer them or explain more 18:18:03 s/Lee?/Lou/ 18:18:06 … can move examples to separate document if needed 18:18:07 -Chris_Pedigo 18:18:14 that makes more sense :-) 18:18:20 sound seems to be off 18:18:36 dwaingberg: can do that offline, question on last bullet point in particular 18:18:39 matthias: do it now 18:19:02 dwainberg: text confusing about what a 3rd party might do but seems alluding to UA implementations 18:19:20 … now understand better the user case 18:19:32 nick: all parts of the spec depend on UA implementation 18:19:40 … help me understand your question more? 18:19:43 Action-139 is more a topic that may be addressed in global considerations IMHO, not in the spec. 18:20:05 dwainberg: sounds like suggesting implementation for UAs to grant or block exceptions on other factors outside the specification 18:20:10 nick: absolutely 18:20:31 dwainberg: would remove that and stick to first two examples 18:20:40 nick: doesn't think it's possible? 18:20:47 dwainberg: doesn't belong as an example 18:20:49 -Simon 18:21:05 nick: other thoughts? 18:21:05 q? 18:21:24 matthias: we should use easy examples everyone can agree on without objections against 18:21:42 disagree -- the easy things don't illustrate nearly so well as the edge cases! 18:21:46 afowler has joined #dnt 18:21:49 matthias: non-normative any way 18:21:52 q? 18:21:55 afowler has left #dnt 18:22:06 ack dsinger 18:22:07 … preferì edge-cases that people in the group are comfortable with 18:22:15 dsinger: would like text shorter and crisper 18:22:23 +1 18:22:23 +! david 18:22:32 … answer is "you must explain to user and get consent" for tracking pixel. 18:22:32 +alot, actually 18:22:40 … starting in the wrong place 18:22:44 q+ 18:22:51 ack rigo 18:22:57 … get exception when user brings a frame or page from your site, and here are examples on how that might occur 18:23:05 david taking an action? :-) 18:23:18 rigo: charm of DNT, no cookie banners like in UK 18:23:22 David - a pop-up would qualify as well, correct? A web beacon could cause that to occur (although the publisher may be very upset with that outcome) :-) 18:23:25 hearing from dsinger that the initial paragraph, which is intended to make that point, should do so more forcefully that tracking pixels can't directly get a Javascript-mediated exception 18:23:29 … this removes some of the benefits we would generate 18:23:40 … in US define DNT:1, in EU define DNT:0 18:23:53 … if you call for exception, has at least the meaning of DNT:0 18:23:56 any document that gets sourced from your domain, that has an attached script, qualifies. frame, pop-up, window, sure... 18:24:06 … even a one pixel image, if browser provides interface could get an exception 18:24:09 WileyS, beacons that can pop up additional windows presumably are running JavaScript 18:24:33 q? 18:24:34 matthias: substantial support for tracking pixel lang into spec? 18:24:37 +1 support 18:24:39 +1 18:24:46 +1 support 18:24:50 +1, I think it can be useful to implementers to explain 18:24:54 Nick, correct 18:25:02 matthias: would like David to do a short version to discuss next time 18:25:02 ok 18:25:06 :-) 18:25:11 sorry, david 18:25:16 today you play Ian :-) 18:25:28 matthias: also put into the spec? 18:25:35 david: will work with Nick and do that 18:25:44 matthias: then mark as pending review 18:25:53 … if objections, can work through those on next call 18:25:55 … ok? 18:25:56 +1 18:25:59 +1 18:25:59 q? 18:26:01 action: singer to condense non-norm examples on non-JS third parties and integrate into spec 18:26:01 Created ACTION-345 - Condense non-norm examples on non-JS third parties and integrate into spec [on David Singer - due 2012-12-12]. 18:26:02 (assume marking as option) 18:26:16 (or otherwise marking as not settled) 18:26:17 what issue is this related to? 18:26:30 Any expectations on timing for the next face-to-face to fit with the 8-week notice rule? 18:26:38 matthias: issue-153 takes more than 3 minutes 18:26:40 q? 18:26:43 q+ 18:26:59 … meet next week, compliance discussion with Peter chairing 18:27:01 Action-345 is attached to which issue? 18:27:03 I know we're saying east coast in late Jan / early Feb but that would mean we're close to closing on a location this week. 18:27:09 … are there prefs on meeting on dec 19? 18:27:10 Meeting on December 19th? 18:27:15 -1 on 19th 18:27:17 +1 18:27:17 +1 18:27:17 -1 18:27:19 -1 18:27:19 +1 18:27:20 +1 18:27:20 +1 18:27:21 -1 18:27:23 -1 on 19th 18:27:24 I may be on a flight on Dec 19th, but could try to call from the airport 18:27:26 +1 18:27:27 0 18:27:28 -1 18:27:29 +1 18:27:29 +1 18:27:36 +1 18:27:37 -1 18:27:40 +1 18:27:47 There is a mix. I suggest we see on the 12th if there are carryover for the 19th 18:27:47 +1 18:27:53 the sooner we nail down the F2F date in February, the better 18:27:59 +1 18:28:12 q? 18:28:26 late Jan is still preferrable for some of us if possible to establish ASAP 18:28:36 Peter: for 19th, no major decisions, but availability is ok. will meet if we have specific things from the call on the 12th. 18:28:36 ack npdoty 18:28:43 q- 18:28:49 ack ri 18:29:10 -cOlsen 18:29:19 matthias & Peter: keep date for call on 19th, we may cancel it 18:29:32 action-319? 18:29:32 ACTION-319 -- Nick Doty to draft non-normative text on how to accomplish non-JS third parties that want to request for exceptions (with lou) -- due 2012-10-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:29:32 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/319 18:29:33 rigo: which issue is David's action item tied to? 18:29:39 -chapell 18:29:50 nick: will handle it 18:29:51 issue-138? 18:29:51 ISSUE-138 -- Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI -- pending review 18:29:51 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138 18:29:55 +1 18:29:56 matthias: issue-138 18:30:02 -Kulick 18:30:03 (might note actions are linked, too) 18:30:04 -vinay 18:30:11 q? 18:30:12 -Joanne 18:30:12 matthias: thanks, adjourned 18:30:14 -[Microsoft] 18:30:15 -BrendanIAB? 18:30:15 -adrianba 18:30:15 rvaneijk1 has left #dnt 18:30:17 -Lmastria-DAA? 18:30:17 -hwest 18:30:19 -Chris_IAB? 18:30:19 - +1.609.310.aaxx 18:30:20 -npdoty 18:30:22 -[Apple] 18:30:23 -Rigo 18:30:23 -Peter 18:30:23 -dwainberg 18:30:24 -aleecia 18:30:24 -hefferjr 18:30:24 -tedleung 18:30:24 -Brooks 18:30:25 -Yianni 18:30:25 -Keith_ANA 18:30:25 -rvaneijk1 18:30:26 -moneill2 18:30:26 thanks 18:30:27 -eberkower 18:30:30 rrsagent, make logs public 18:30:31 -David_McMillan 18:30:31 zakim, [apple] had dsinger 18:30:32 I don't understand '[apple] had dsinger', dsinger 18:30:34 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:30:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/05-dnt-minutes.html npdoty 18:30:34 -peter-4As? 18:30:38 tedleung has left #dnt 18:30:38 Zakim, list attendees 18:30:38 As of this point the attendees have been dsinger, npdoty, dwainberg, Rigo, +1.917.934.aaaa, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, moneill2, +1.415.520.aacc, +1.408.674.aadd, +1.781.482.aaee, 18:30:42 ... jchester2, samsilberman, aleecia, Joanne, +1.202.296.aaff, susanisrael, Walter, David_McMillan, Keith_ANA, +1.917.934.aagg, [FTC], schunter, vinay, +1.301.351.aahh, 18:30:42 ... +31.65.141.aaii, rvaneijk1, adrianba, +1.703.265.aajj, dan_auerbach, +1.646.666.aakk, BrendanIAB?, +1.678.580.aall, +1.303.661.aamm, +1.937.215.aann, +1.415.309.aaoo, 18:30:45 ... Chris_IAB?, Bryan_Sullivan, +1.813.366.aapp, [Microsoft], hefferjr, hwest, +1.202.344.aaqq, +1.408.349.aarr, WileyS, chapell, Jonathan_Mayer, +1.408.349.aass, jeffwilson, 18:30:45 ... Brooks, Simon, laurengelman?, cOlsen, Kulick, Yianni, +1.206.664.aatt, afowler, tedleung, +1.310.392.aauu, [Apple], johnsimpson, +1.202.331.aavv, +1.202.344.aaww, Mike_IAB, 18:30:45 ... peter-4As?, +1.609.310.aaxx, Chris_Pedigo, +1.646.654.aayy, eberkower 18:30:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:30:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/05-dnt-minutes.html npdoty 18:30:52 -laurengelman? 18:30:57 an apple a dsinger keeps the doctor away? 18:30:59 -[FTC] 18:31:35 ah, fun 18:31:37 -schunter 18:31:47 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 18:31:50 care to mention which person for the minutes? 18:32:03 seeing as we're doing the no unidentified callers policy 18:32:13 i am here 18:32:14 bye 18:32:41 -jchester2 18:33:50 -Walter 18:34:50 Zakim, bye 18:34:50 leaving. As of this point the attendees were dsinger, npdoty, dwainberg, Rigo, +1.917.934.aaaa, +1.202.331.aabb, Peter, moneill2, +1.415.520.aacc, +1.408.674.aadd, 18:34:50 Zakim has left #dnt 18:34:53 ... +1.781.482.aaee, jchester2, samsilberman, aleecia, Joanne, +1.202.296.aaff, susanisrael, Walter, David_McMillan, Keith_ANA, +1.917.934.aagg, [FTC], schunter, vinay, 18:34:53 ... +1.301.351.aahh, +31.65.141.aaii, rvaneijk1, adrianba, +1.703.265.aajj, dan_auerbach, +1.646.666.aakk, BrendanIAB?, +1.678.580.aall, +1.303.661.aamm, +1.937.215.aann, 18:34:57 ... +1.415.309.aaoo, Chris_IAB?, Bryan_Sullivan, +1.813.366.aapp, [Microsoft], hefferjr, hwest, +1.202.344.aaqq, +1.408.349.aarr, WileyS, chapell, Jonathan_Mayer, +1.408.349.aass, 18:34:57 ... jeffwilson, Brooks, Simon, laurengelman?, cOlsen, Kulick, Yianni, +1.206.664.aatt, afowler, tedleung, +1.310.392.aauu, [Apple], johnsimpson, +1.202.331.aavv, +1.202.344.aaww, 18:34:57 ... Mike_IAB, peter-4As?, +1.609.310.aaxx, Chris_Pedigo, +1.646.654.aayy, eberkower 18:35:12 rrsagent, please draft minutes 18:35:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/05-dnt-minutes.html rigo 19:17:36 johnsimpson has left #dnt 19:18:40 schunter_ has joined #dnt 21:38:14 schunter has joined #dnt 22:19:45 npdoty has joined #dnt 22:24:16 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 22:55:08 tlr has joined #dnt 23:04:23 npdoty has joined #dnt 23:44:01 tlr has joined #dnt