IRC log of dnt on 2012-12-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

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