16:54:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:54:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/20-dnt-irc
16:54:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:54:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
16:54:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:54:57 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started
16:54:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:54:58 <trackbot> Date: 20 November 2013
16:56:32 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:56:40 <ninja> ninja has joined #dnt
16:57:42 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:57:47 <Zakim> +ninja
16:57:55 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
16:57:56 <ninja> zakim, mute me
16:57:56 <Zakim> ninja should now be muted
16:58:10 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:58:25 <Zakim> +dwainberg
16:58:33 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
16:58:54 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:58:58 <schunter> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:58:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P4, +1.646.654.aaaa, rvaneijk, ninja (muted), dwainberg, [Apple]
16:59:00 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:59:00 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:59:06 <eberkower> Zakim, aaaa is eberkower
16:59:06 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
16:59:06 <schunter> Zakim, ??P4 is me
16:59:08 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:59:10 <npdoty> npdoty has changed the topic to: agenda November 20: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-announce/2013Nov/0007.html
16:59:20 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:59:23 <Zakim> +Jack_Hobaugh
16:59:27 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
16:59:36 <Zakim> +Joanne
16:59:37 <npdoty> agenda+ scribe
16:59:46 <npdoty> agenda+ TPWG support with Jeff
16:59:47 <GSHans> GSHans has joined #dnt
16:59:55 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:59:59 <Zakim> +Carl_Cargill
17:00:08 <Zakim> +WaltMichel
17:00:09 <npdoty> Zakim, drop agendum 2
17:00:10 <Zakim> agendum 2, TPWG support with Jeff, dropped
17:00:15 <npdoty> agenda+ caller identification
17:00:22 <npdoty> agenda+ TPWG support with Jeff
17:00:38 <npdoty> agenda+ dependencies on compliance (dsinger, fielding)
17:00:48 <Zakim> +Ari
17:00:50 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
17:00:54 <npdoty> agenda+ timeline
17:01:03 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
17:01:06 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
17:01:14 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
17:01:22 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:01:23 <npdoty> agenda+ network and user interaction
17:01:24 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #dnt
17:01:28 <Zakim> +vinay
17:01:31 <npdoty> agenda+ UA requirement on exceptions
17:01:35 <Zakim> +Jeff
17:01:38 <Zakim> +[CDT]
17:01:44 <npdoty> agenda+ reminders and announcements
17:01:45 <justin> zakim, cdt has me and gshans
17:01:45 <Zakim> +justin, gshans; got it
17:01:49 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda?
17:01:49 <Zakim> I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
17:01:50 <Zakim> 1. scribe [from npdoty]
17:01:50 <Zakim> 3. caller identification [from npdoty]
17:01:50 <Zakim> 4. TPWG support with Jeff [from npdoty]
17:01:50 <Zakim> 5. dependencies on compliance (dsinger, fielding) [from npdoty]
17:01:51 <Zakim> 6. timeline [from npdoty]
17:01:51 <Zakim> 7. network and user interaction [from npdoty]
17:01:51 <Zakim> 8. UA requirement on exceptions [from npdoty]
17:01:51 <Zakim> 9. reminders and announcements [from npdoty]
17:01:55 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
17:01:56 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:01:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, eberkower, rvaneijk, ninja (muted), dwainberg, [Apple], npdoty, Jack_Hobaugh, RichardWeaver, Joanne, Carl_Cargill, WaltMichel, Ari, vinay, Jeff, [CDT],
17:01:59 <Zakim> ... Chris_Pedigo
17:01:59 <Zakim> [CDT] has justin, gshans
17:01:59 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
17:02:00 <Zakim> +Fielding
17:02:08 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
17:02:26 <dsinger> scribenick dsinger
17:02:26 <justin> scribenick: dsinger
17:02:32 <npdoty> dsinger to scribe first half; Joanne to scribe later if need be
17:02:35 <npdoty> Zakim, drop agendum 1
17:02:35 <Zakim> agendum 1, scribe, dropped
17:02:41 <dsinger> scribe: david singer
17:02:56 <Zakim> +hefferjr
17:02:58 <npdoty> agenda?
17:03:06 <Zakim> +kulick
17:03:21 <npdoty> Zakim, drop agendum 3
17:03:21 <Zakim> agendum 3, caller identification, dropped
17:03:24 <dsinger> schunter: offline caller ID, done
17:03:28 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
17:03:33 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 4
17:03:33 <Zakim> agendum 4. "TPWG support with Jeff" taken up [from npdoty]
17:03:33 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has me
17:03:34 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
17:03:35 <dsinger> schunter: enhanced support for the TPWG
17:03:36 <Zakim> +SusanIsrael
17:03:37 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:03:54 <dsinger> jeff jaffe: let's let people dial in...
17:04:29 <schunter> ??
17:05:24 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
17:05:32 <dsinger> zakim, who is here?>
17:05:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is here?>', dsinger
17:05:38 <dsinger> zakim, who is here?
17:05:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, eberkower, rvaneijk, ninja (muted), dwainberg, [Apple], npdoty, Jack_Hobaugh, RichardWeaver, Joanne, Carl_Cargill, WaltMichel, Ari, vinay, Jeff, [CDT],
17:05:39 <Zakim> ... Chris_Pedigo, Fielding, hefferjr, kulick, [Mozilla], SusanIsrael
17:05:40 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:05:40 <Zakim> [CDT] has justin, gshans
17:05:43 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
17:05:43 <Zakim> On IRC I see moneill2, susanisrael, kj, jeff_, sidstamm, fielding, Ari, justin, vinay, Richard_comScore, GSHans, Joanne, kulick, npdoty, dwainberg, ninja, WaltMichel, Zakim,
17:05:43 <Zakim> ... RRSAgent, JackHobaugh, dsinger, rvaneijk, eberkower, schunter, qchris
17:05:56 <Zakim> +moneill
17:05:59 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:06:27 <dsinger> agenda?
17:06:43 <dsinger> jeff_: share a couple of things with the WG
17:06:47 <npdoty> chair: schunter, justin, cargill
17:06:55 <Zakim> +Chapell
17:06:56 <dsinger> ... quite a few emails over the last few weeks, looking for precision, etc.
17:07:10 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
17:07:21 <dsinger> ... clearer schedule, dates, etc.  Lots of work to coordinate, to make announcements, and so on
17:07:22 <justin> The agenda is slightly wrong --- the correct link for the wiki on "network transaction" is actually: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Revise_network_interaction_definition
17:07:37 <Zakim> +[FTC]
17:07:46 <dsinger> ... wrote to the AC of the W3C, looking at the 2013 sponsorship of the TPWG, and inviting 2014 support
17:07:54 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
17:08:23 <dsinger> ... three areas identified:  (1) chair support; lots going on, they need help (e.g. issue management, resolution, documentation)
17:08:38 <dsinger> ... (2) lots of public interest, we need better communications of results and status
17:08:55 <dsinger> ... (3) no large meetings planned, but it's plausible we'll need one and need support for that
17:09:37 <dsinger> ... so I asked AC for support, asking for $35K suggested each.  Request is still open (step up!), but we have enough sponsors to hire some support for at least 6 months
17:10:01 <ninja> you did, thanks, jeff.
17:10:12 <dsinger> ... still working on contract details, but am pleased to announce Ninja Marna, who is in process of departing previous position, is in running to do that
17:10:26 <dsinger> ... we hope that that helps us get the clarity and chair support
17:10:40 <carlcargill> carlcargill has joined #dnt
17:10:54 <dsinger> ... (jeff) thinks that this was a unique opportunity to find someone without needing to get up to speed on the WG
17:11:11 <justin> q?
17:11:14 <dsinger> ... will be able to support the chairs and group in getting the documents to LC
17:11:19 <schunter> q?
17:11:27 <dsinger> dwainberg: who is providing sponsorship?
17:11:51 <dsinger> jeff_: we announced last year's, in 2013.  prefer not to state before the call is complete
17:12:03 <dsinger> dwainberg: disclosed on finalization?
17:12:12 <dsinger> jeff_: it's not decided, but likely, yes
17:12:14 <Zakim> +Brooks
17:12:21 <schunter> q?
17:12:26 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
17:12:27 <dsinger> schunter: other questions or comments?
17:12:33 <dsinger> ... moving on
17:12:45 <dsinger> ... agenda 5
17:12:48 <npdoty> Zakim, next agendum
17:12:48 <Zakim> agendum 5. "dependencies on compliance (dsinger, fielding)" taken up [from npdoty]
17:12:58 <dsinger> ... what needs to happen to the TPE before done
17:13:16 <dsinger> ... some CFOs outstanding, and we have some pending review to clean up
17:13:19 <npdoty> issue-136?
17:13:19 <trackbot> issue-136 -- Resolve dependencies of the TPE on the compliance specification -- open
17:13:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/136
17:13:25 <dsinger> ... one big one is dependency on the compliance document
17:13:32 <dsinger> ... we need to reduce/eliminate those
17:13:46 <dsinger> ... we had an offline discussion on what to do
17:14:14 <susanisrael> dsinger, I can scribe for you
17:14:30 <dsinger> fielding: generally, remove the dependency on compliance, and find all the references and remove them
17:14:30 <susanisrael> dsinger, just let me know if you want me to
17:14:56 <dsinger> ... only substantial changes are in the area of the tracking status response and qualifiers:  the 1 and 3 values (first and 3rd party)
17:15:20 <dsinger> ... the TPE enables communication, users to servers (preference) and servers to users (status, requests)
17:15:36 <eberkower> Zakim, where is the piano music coming from?
17:15:37 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, eberkower.
17:15:37 <dsinger> ... no editing yet, but hope to start tomorrow (after polls close)
17:15:43 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:15:54 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
17:16:08 <susanisrael> dsinger: issue data base needs to be cleaned up, hope to get help from ninja on that one
17:16:10 <justin> dsinger: fielding covered it.  The issues database is out of sync with the TPE --- want to accord those (with ninja's help)
17:16:43 <susanisrael> dsinger: as roy said tracking status/qualifiers need work, may document them in the compliance document
17:16:45 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
17:17:23 <ninja> I am currently working on an overview of the status of the pending review issues, dsinger. I can give an update on this in the next days.
17:17:26 <justin> q?
17:17:27 <dsinger> schunter: "this site follows first-party rules" is clearly an unconnected statement without compliance
17:17:28 <schunter> q?
17:17:30 <npdoty> q+
17:17:35 <schunter> ack np
17:17:36 <susanisrael> schunter: for example, we say this site follows first party use, but need to define first party rules
17:18:07 <susanisrael> npdoty: i raised this comment before, just to add the possibility that there might be a simpler path, that doesn't require so much change.....
17:18:43 <Zakim> +hwest
17:18:44 <susanisrael> ...group has expressed interest in taking tpe to last call first.  want to make sure tpe is comprehensable, testable, on its own, but that does not mean it cannot reference another document....
17:19:15 <Zakim> +LeeTien
17:19:20 <dsinger> q+
17:19:22 <susanisrael> permitted uses, for example, 136, meant to make sure we are harmonizing permitted uses, but now we have a more stable list.  We can update and keep the syntactical stuff in tpe document...
17:19:47 <schunter> q?
17:19:49 <susanisrael> fielding: permitted uses would be defined as responses to server from client ("this is what tracking is limited to on our site")
17:19:50 <schunter> ack d
17:20:43 <npdoty> I think it's even alright to open another stable document (like a particular publication of a Working Draft)
17:20:43 <schunter> q?
17:20:49 <susanisrael> dsinger: clear that the request from user to server, syntactical uses, etc, need to stand alone, as long as it's clear, as long as no explanation in another document
17:20:55 <npdoty> ... if, for example, people are worried about which definitions are located in which document
17:21:13 <susanisrael> schunter: so we should give an action to editors to do a pass and remove dependencies.....
17:21:26 <moneill2> me too
17:21:29 <npdoty> yes, I'd like to help review
17:21:41 <susanisrael> dsinger: would people like to review with us before we release?  ( nick and matthias)
17:21:54 <susanisrael> schunter: so send an email to list saying we want these changes
17:22:28 <susanisrael> fielding: often easier to see changes in context...my goal was to have one or two example docs available by friday for people to review and consider over long break
17:22:32 <susanisrael> schunter: great
17:22:35 <kulick> that would be great... as long as the deltas are clearly defined
17:22:45 <npdoty> yeah, we can send around complete .html files with different variations, to make it easier to read
17:22:45 <susanisrael> schunter: would be great to quickly explain changes
17:23:01 <susanisrael> fielding: we should definitely have a diff
17:23:11 <schunter> q?
17:23:16 <susanisrael> schunter: more on this agenda item?
17:23:18 <dsinger> agenda?
17:23:27 <susanisrael> dsinger, do you want to scribe again?
17:23:30 <npdoty> Zakim, close agendum 5
17:23:30 <Zakim> agendum 5, dependencies on compliance (dsinger, fielding), closed
17:23:31 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:23:31 <Zakim> 6. timeline [from npdoty]
17:23:36 <npdoty> Zakim, next agenudm
17:23:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next agenudm', npdoty
17:23:39 <npdoty> Zakim, next agendum
17:23:39 <Zakim> agendum 6. "timeline" taken up [from npdoty]
17:23:46 <dsinger> schunter: Justin, timeline to the LC and issues?
17:23:46 <susanisrael>  * dsinger, yw
17:23:56 <dsinger> justin: not many open/raised issues against TPE
17:23:59 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
17:24:15 <dsinger> justin: biggest question is how to make it make sense without the compliance document
17:24:17 <_538> _538 has joined #dnt
17:24:29 <dsinger> ... we have an issue on whether there needs to be a link to compliance regimes
17:24:38 <dsinger> ... not many others that need resolution
17:24:58 <dsinger> ... so, once we have a def of tracking, we should publish a good WD next month and be at LC in early 2014
17:25:19 <justin> q?
17:25:20 <dsinger> ... if there are issues that need discussion before LC, please send them to the list, so we can have a clear route to LC
17:25:36 <dsinger> ... no more questions?  So, moving into issues
17:25:45 <npdoty> Nick will update the group homepage to let the public know updated estimated timeline.
17:25:50 <dsinger> ... polls close tonight on 5 (tracking) and 10 (party)
17:25:58 <dsinger> ... as of last night, not much response
17:26:04 <dsinger> ... so please weigh in
17:26:13 <npdoty> cheers to moneill2 for responding promptly!
17:26:18 <dsinger> ... over to Carl and Matthias for definition of network transaction/interaction
17:26:21 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Revise_network_interaction_definition
17:26:22 <npdoty> Zakim, next agendum
17:26:22 <Zakim> agendum 7. "network and user interaction" taken up [from npdoty]
17:26:39 <dsinger> cargil: Matthias, status of 204? resolved as part of issue 16?
17:26:42 <dsinger> issue-204?
17:26:42 <trackbot> issue-204 -- Definitions of collection / retention and transience / network interaction -- pending review
17:26:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/204
17:26:45 <dsinger> issue-16?
17:26:45 <trackbot> issue-16 -- What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data? -- pending review
17:26:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/16
17:26:54 <dsinger> justin: 204 was tied to 16, yes
17:27:06 <dsinger> cargill: let's start at 217
17:27:08 <dsinger> issue-217?
17:27:08 <trackbot> issue-217 -- Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction -- open
17:27:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/217
17:27:22 <dsinger> cargill: Roy, you raised
17:27:37 <justin> q+
17:27:40 <dsinger> fielding: the compliance doc talks about network interaction as a set, but uses it as a single request/response
17:27:57 <dsinger> fielding: I am trying to split into separate definitions, so we can see the details
17:27:57 <npdoty> fielding's proposal: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Revise_network_interaction_definition#Proposal_.282.29:_Split_into_user_action.2C_network_interaction.2C_and_subrequest
17:28:18 <dsinger> ... it's good to have clear terminology, so we are clear and not confusing each other
17:28:31 <dsinger> ... so that's my proposal in the changes shown above
17:28:37 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Revise_network_interaction_definition
17:28:37 <dsinger> zakim, who is playing the piano?
17:28:37 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, dsinger.
17:28:56 <dsinger> ... there are some objections, and some responses from me
17:28:59 <susanisrael> dsinger, i think piano is on roy's line
17:29:17 <dsinger> cargill: over to Jack
17:29:18 <rvaneijk> q+
17:29:20 <kulick> it's soothing
17:29:28 <schunter> q?
17:29:29 <GSHans> wish we had classical music on every call
17:29:30 <moneill2> +q
17:29:36 <dsinger> jack: moving to the guitar
17:29:59 <dsinger> ... so I think that in this case we have a proposal from IAB, DAA, NAI
17:30:06 <dsinger> q+
17:30:06 <susanisrael>  * +1 to more music
17:30:07 <schunter> q?
17:30:22 <npdoty> JackHobaugh, do you want to explain how it's different from Roy's? could you live with Roy's text as well?
17:30:32 <npdoty> ack justin
17:30:39 <dsinger> justin: I have not followed closely. are Jack's and Roy's definitions different? Can we understand?
17:31:03 <dsinger> jack: to me
17:31:10 <dsinger> justin: to whoever can answer
17:31:26 <npdoty> dsinger, if you have a text proposal, can you add it to the wiki? I may have missed it
17:32:07 <kulick> q+
17:32:15 <dsinger> jack: I don't believe that this needs definition for TPE.  As for difference, the industry uses a set of requests and responses; Roy uses one.  I presented for a couple of groupd, and cannot comment on equivalence
17:32:38 <dsinger> fielding: they are not equivalent, and note that the requirements in compliance use them differently
17:32:43 <Zakim> +Mike_Zaneis
17:33:01 <Mike_Zaneis> Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
17:33:14 <npdoty> JackHobaugh, I think we can understand your wanting to follow up with others in your and other organizations. can you check with them about the difference?
17:33:19 <dsinger> ... e.g. parts talk about "a network interaction" following the user selection. clearly does not include embedded images on a page.  You can describe it as a set, but it's not useful as we use it
17:33:36 <dsinger> jack: Roy, do we need it for TPE.
17:33:37 <kulick> q-
17:33:44 <dsinger> fielding: not sure.  ask me Friday
17:33:53 <npdoty> JackHobaugh, I think your term can be accomplished from Roy's via "set of network interactions and subrequests resulting from a single user action"
17:33:58 <justin> q?
17:34:05 <dsinger> ... in the past I have used request/response (one request and its matching response(s))
17:34:20 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
17:34:35 <dsinger> justin: this came in the collect/share question, so it's a core concept even if not used in the TPE.  May well not be in the TPE
17:34:50 <justin> q?
17:34:52 <dsinger> ... we're going down this road, and we can do the CFO tonight
17:35:02 <schunter> q?
17:35:05 <kulick> correct
17:35:08 <dsinger> fielding: do I recall use in the issue-5 definitions?
17:35:24 <npdoty> Option B refers to network transaction
17:35:24 <moneill2> network transaction
17:35:32 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition
17:36:13 <npdoty> both options on Collect refer to "network interaction"
17:36:14 <npdoty> q?
17:36:16 <dsinger> dsinger: yes, my tracking definition set a bright line at the end of the request/response(s)
17:36:19 <npdoty> ack rvaneijk
17:37:02 <dsinger> rvaneijk: is it needed to define user request; can we limit this one (network interaction) to request/response. there are two types, ones initiated by the user, and ones not so
17:37:42 <dsinger> fielding: I don't see them as a package. I was worried about defining, and only defining what we need/use (it's pointless to waste time on terms we don't use)
17:37:53 <dsinger> ... it'll be a couple of weeks
17:38:04 <npdoty> +1 for that; define terms and if we don't need them then we don't include them
17:38:09 <dsinger> rvaneijk: I think a clear definition is very useful. I agree we need to look at need
17:38:18 <dsinger> q?
17:38:20 <npdoty> ack moneill
17:38:34 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
17:39:23 <dsinger> moneill: make the same point; network transaction is clearly the ping-pong response.  we probably need that. yes, we have mixed the terms transaction/interaction, and we should have a definition of the ping-pong, and if we have a concept of the 'flurry' we may need a term for that too
17:39:29 <dsinger> ... we need a definition that's tight
17:40:03 <dsinger> fielding: yes, traditionally we'd talk about one as request/response, and the other might mean something like a single 'buy' interaction
17:40:16 <dsinger> moneill: yes, we should have clear terms for both
17:40:26 <dsinger> cargill: are you asking for a singular defn?
17:40:38 <dsinger> moneill: don't mind, as long as life is clear and we have definitions
17:40:44 <dsinger> q?
17:40:55 <npdoty> ack dsinger
17:41:35 <npdoty> dsinger: DNT header is sent specific to a request, so it may change between interactions
17:41:50 <npdoty> dsinger: server may not always know when a larger user action has finished
17:42:07 <npdoty> fielding: unlikely to use the "set" as a whole in TPE, but might talk about subrequests, not initiated by a user action
17:42:11 <schunter> q?
17:42:11 <dsinger> fielding: yes, the 'set' or 'flurry' is unlikely to be used in TPE
17:42:21 <dsinger> issue-217?
17:42:21 <trackbot> issue-217 -- Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction -- open
17:42:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/217
17:42:23 <npdoty> q+
17:42:30 <dsinger> cargill: where are we on 217?
17:42:35 <justin> ack npd
17:42:39 <JackHobaugh_> JackHobaugh_ has joined #dnt
17:43:00 <dsinger> npdoty: I think Jack wanted to check with people and come back, and the differences between NAI et al and the Roy definition
17:43:13 <dsinger> ... Roy, are you OK with the industry defn?
17:43:38 <dsinger> fielding: it doesn't worry me, but it's inconsistent with the rest of compliance, but maybe we won't use it
17:43:57 <Chapell> q+
17:44:12 <rvaneijk> q+
17:44:30 <susanisrael> does it make sense to let fielding review the doc first and see whether he thinks the definition is necessary?
17:44:42 <Chapell> Wait, the entire working group has just communicated to the chairs that we don't know whether we like either definition, both definitions, or neither definition, but the chairs are pushing for a CFO?
17:45:10 <npdoty> ack Chapell
17:45:46 <dsinger> chapell: I am sorta confused. What I am hearing from the WG whether we need the definitions etc.
17:46:04 <dsinger> justin: what's the alternative?
17:46:06 <dsinger> q+
17:46:18 <dsinger> justin: what is the alt?
17:46:37 <dsinger> chapell: what I am hearing from Roy is that we need to determine need and context and use
17:46:40 <npdoty> well, all potential definitions of "collect" depend on these terms
17:47:05 <dsinger> justin: we need core concepts defined, and that's what the WG says.  We can agree on a definition and if it's not used, so be it
17:47:15 <npdoty> and both definitions of "tracking" depend on collection or network transaction
17:47:23 <dsinger> ... if you don't like the Roy definition, object.
17:47:31 <dsinger> cargill: we want to close this issue
17:47:35 <justin> q?
17:47:37 <npdoty> ack rvaneijk
17:47:39 <justin> ack rva
17:48:14 <dsinger> rvanejk: I would like to throw in a simplified definition: we only one need network interaction, and we can drop  the other two.  we can simplify
17:48:17 <Chapell> The chairs seem intent on moving to closure on issues prior to the working group indicating that they are ripe. If that's the process going forward, so be it.
17:48:23 <dsinger> ... and I should take it to the list, correct?
17:48:40 <dsinger> justin: you could object to the last two parts, in the CfO
17:48:54 <dsinger> cargill: I would like that documented in the CfO that you object to the last two terms
17:49:14 <dsinger> q?
17:49:19 <justin> q?
17:49:41 <npdoty> ack dsinger
17:50:00 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
17:50:18 <susanisrael> and also didn't roy say he wanted to reread the doc by friday to see whether he thinks he needs the definition?
17:50:34 <sidstamm> dsinger: no reason to run the call for objections if we have consensus
17:50:36 <Zakim> +WileyS
17:50:47 <fielding> I think the current status should be a final call for candidates.
17:51:02 <npdoty> susanisrael, but every definition of collect relies on it, and all proposals have used that
17:51:06 <dsinger> rvanejk: I would object to proposal 1 (a series), especially when about the initial request. Article 5(3) wants an initial request, and so on
17:51:24 <susanisrael> npdoty, ok with me but I was just trying to follow the thread of today's discussion
17:51:32 <dsinger> ... but see many possibilities in the second proposal
17:52:23 <sidstamm> dsinger: but it seems like these are different terms (not alternatives), and it doesn't make sense to "force them into battle"
17:52:29 <dsinger> justin: want to use the CFO to force getting comments
17:52:53 <justin> q?
17:52:56 <dsinger> dsinger: do we need the CFO machine? it seems we may have consensus on two terms (one rqst/response, and the flurry)
17:53:11 <dsinger> cargill: want to go to CFO
17:53:24 <dsinger> fielding: so we'd start with a formal call for candidates
17:53:29 <dsinger> ... and the poll starts after that
17:53:50 <dsinger> justin: we requested final candidates last week
17:54:14 <dsinger> fielding: I missed that.  I only put in the proposal last weekend, but it's not been in there very long
17:54:14 <npdoty> do we want to say, let's use a week to settle the candidates (and if it turns out we can whittle it down to 1, then yay we're done)?
17:54:22 <rvaneijk> missed that too.
17:54:37 <Chapell> This is one of the challenges around trying to close issues in batches --- many folks are unaware that we're at final proposal stage on this issue
17:54:56 <WileyS> Let's try to follow a process for once
17:55:06 <Chapell> The chairs are not following the process
17:55:18 <rvaneijk> WOuld like to throw in the 3rd proposal..
17:55:26 <dsinger> justin: don't want to make more controversy than needed. don't want to wait too long for candidates, want to close it out
17:55:27 <moneill2> +1
17:55:32 <WileyS> Sounds like a 3rd proposal is coming...
17:55:38 <dsinger> fielding: can we hang on to Friday for proposals
17:55:44 <npdoty> I think the chairs are trying to follow the process they stated, based on what they said last week about calling for candidates
17:55:46 <dsinger> justin: OK with that
17:56:08 <dsinger> cargill: final candidate list is due by COB Friday.  Agreed
17:56:13 <dsinger> q?
17:56:16 <npdoty> agenda?
17:56:24 <npdoty> Zakim, close agendum 7
17:56:24 <Zakim> agendum 7, network and user interaction, closed
17:56:25 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:56:25 <Zakim> 8. UA requirement on exceptions [from npdoty]
17:56:28 <dsinger> justin: to 151?
17:56:31 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 8
17:56:31 <Zakim> agendum 8. "UA requirement on exceptions" taken up [from npdoty]
17:56:32 <dsinger> issue-151?
17:56:32 <trackbot> issue-151 -- User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request -- open
17:56:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/151
17:57:11 <rvaneijk> q+
17:57:21 <Chris_IAb> Chris_IAb has joined #dnt
17:57:27 <WileyS> Not a MAY - object
17:57:27 <dsinger> schunter: call is out, and closes today.  only one proposal received, from JohnSimpson.  Unless something else received, we have consensus since we have one proposal
17:57:35 <schunter> q?
17:57:38 <WileyS> +q
17:57:38 <rvaneijk> Matthias, ....
17:57:41 <justin> I suspect it won't be that easy :)
17:57:49 <dsinger> schunter: so if we stay at only one proposal, that's what happens
17:57:52 <dsinger> q?
17:57:54 <npdoty> ack rvaneijk
17:58:16 <Zakim> +??P11
17:58:23 <schunter> This is also meant as a gentle reminder ;-)
17:58:30 <dsinger> rvanejk: I need to apologize, am out of sync with the process.  I am surprised that there is only one.  I would plead for a must
17:58:30 <Chris_IAb> sorry for joining the call late
17:58:32 <fielding> That would be the opposite of the June draft (which had a MUST)
17:58:40 <npdoty> Zakim, ??p11 is Chris_IAb
17:58:40 <Zakim> +Chris_IAb; got it
17:58:43 <dsinger> scribe notes that the call for texts is open through today
17:58:49 <dsinger> q?
17:58:52 <npdoty> ack WileyS
17:59:41 <dsinger> wileys: I think I missed, do we need to support the current consensus for a 'must'. Believe that there was a consensus around must. You seem to have flipped.  I am confused
17:59:48 <dsinger> q+ to deny we ever had consensus on must
18:00:02 <dsinger> ... was looking for counter proposals
18:00:34 <dsinger> schunter: process was a call for proposals, and I receive a bunch.  Your proposal is a 'no change', and we therefore have two proposals
18:00:36 <Zakim> -Jeff
18:00:39 <npdoty> q?
18:00:50 <dsinger> ... which leads to a CFO, MAY vs. MUST \
18:00:56 <Zakim> -Ari
18:00:59 <Zakim> -moneill
18:01:08 <dsinger> that would then go to a CfO
18:01:19 <dsinger> schunter: did not realize MUST was already in
18:01:25 <dsinger> q?
18:01:27 <npdoty> Nick will set up a wiki with text proposals on issue-151 (current text, and an OPTIONAL version)
18:01:30 <WileyS> I've sent at least 10 emails on this topic over the past 2 years.
18:01:36 <dsinger> ... want a wiki up, and then we'll go into CfO
18:01:40 <WileyS> Fine
18:01:42 <schunter> q?
18:01:44 <schunter> ack d
18:01:44 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to deny we ever had consensus on must
18:02:08 <Zakim> +moneill
18:02:13 <justin> dsinger: Call for proposals still open through today.
18:02:28 <WileyS> Sent
18:02:38 <justin> dsinger: On issue -151
18:02:57 <npdoty> dsinger: call for texts is open until today, I am still looking at the current text to see if we can live with it or need to propose an alternative
18:03:03 <fielding> it was part of the June draft
18:03:06 <WileyS> That's fair - there is never concensus on any topic in this forum - but the existing text stated MUST and most seemed to support that position.
18:03:19 <WileyS> Nick, could you please help find the MUST - you seemed to find it last time
18:03:24 <npdoty> q+
18:03:42 <justin> Don't think there's a MUST in compliance on this.
18:03:45 <schunter> q?
18:03:49 <schunter> ack np
18:04:16 <WileyS> Thank you Nick!
18:04:35 <justin> Compliance doesn't say jack about the exception mechanism.
18:05:04 <justin> Does WileyS need/want to revise his proposal in light of what npdoty just said? :)
18:05:05 <npdoty> q+
18:05:42 <fielding> In compliance Scope: The specification applies to compliance with requests through user agents that (1) can access the general browsable Web; (2) have a user interface that satisfies the requirements in Determining User Preference in the [TRACKING-DNT] specification; (3) and can implement all of the [TRACKING-DNT] specification, including the mechanisms for communicating a tracking status, and the user-granted exception mechanism.
18:06:08 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
18:06:11 <WileyS> David, strongly disagree - I was at that meeting and most in the room supported a requirement for balance in the spec
18:06:28 <WileyS> It was based on that position that IE implemented the exception API in IE10
18:06:49 <WileyS> David, respectfully I feel you're wrong.  There is a requirement if you say you support DNT.
18:06:54 <justin> fielding, When was that added?
18:07:00 <fielding> June draft
18:07:14 <fielding> (not my doing, that's for sure)
18:07:25 <justin> fielding, or mine :)
18:07:28 <dwainberg> This has been well established for a long time that parties will rely on the exception mechanism and therefore implementing in the UA must be a MUST.
18:07:29 <npdoty> q?
18:08:23 <dsinger> agenda?
18:08:25 <dsinger> q?
18:08:25 <schunter> q?
18:08:28 <schunter> ack np
18:09:12 <fielding> q+
18:09:38 <WileyS> The entire spec is a MAY :-)
18:09:55 <npdoty> just trying to give history and explain why adding extra MUSTs doesn't change it
18:10:01 <dsinger> schunter: I want the spec to be completely clear
18:10:21 <npdoty> yes, I'll totally set up the wiki to get specific texts
18:10:22 <dsinger> schunter: we need the wiki, text proposals, and so on, heading to CfO
18:10:28 <fielding> q-
18:10:32 <dsinger> ... closing that agenda item
18:10:35 <npdoty> agenda?
18:10:36 <dsinger> agenda?
18:10:45 <npdoty> Zakim, close agendum 8
18:10:45 <Zakim> agendum 8, UA requirement on exceptions, closed
18:10:46 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
18:10:46 <Zakim> 9. reminders and announcements [from npdoty]
18:10:49 <npdoty> Zakim, next agendum
18:10:49 <Zakim> agendum 9. "reminders and announcements" taken up [from npdoty]
18:11:19 <npdoty> I have dates on the wiki for the Calls for Objections and Matthias' request on closing pending review TPE issues
18:11:21 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG
18:11:25 <schunter> q?
18:11:26 <dsinger> ... summary: 5 and 10 are under CfO.  for 151 next step is to finish collection, today.  if you want 'no change', submit it
18:11:28 <Zakim> -LeeTien
18:11:32 <dsinger> ... any other business?
18:11:36 <Zakim> -Chapell
18:11:48 <dsinger> ... chairs, going to call?
18:11:51 <Zakim> -Fielding
18:11:54 <Zakim> -[CDT]
18:11:56 <Zakim> -vinay
18:11:57 <dsinger> ... meeting is adjourned
18:11:58 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
18:11:59 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
18:12:00 <Zakim> -[FTC]
18:12:00 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
18:12:01 <Zakim> -dwainberg
18:12:02 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
18:12:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.646.654.aaaa, rvaneijk, ninja, dwainberg, dsinger, eberkower, schunter, npdoty, Jack_Hobaugh, RichardWeaver, Joanne, Carl_Cargill,
18:12:02 <Zakim> ... WaltMichel, Ari, vinay, Jeff, justin, gshans, Chris_Pedigo, Fielding, hefferjr, kulick, sidstamm, SusanIsrael, moneill, Chapell, [FTC], Brooks, hwest, LeeTien, Peder_Magee,
18:12:02 <Zakim> ... Mike_Zaneis, WileyS, Chris_IAb
18:12:06 <dsinger> have a greak break, everyone
18:12:06 <Zakim> -Joanne
18:12:06 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
18:12:06 <Zakim> -moneill
18:12:06 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
18:12:06 <Zakim> -kulick
18:12:06 <Zakim> -Brooks
18:12:06 <Zakim> -hefferjr
18:12:06 <Zakim> -Chris_IAb
18:12:06 <Zakim> -Carl_Cargill
18:12:13 <Zakim> -schunter
18:12:17 <Zakim> -ninja
18:12:18 <Zakim> -Jack_Hobaugh
18:12:20 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
18:12:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/20-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:12:21 <Zakim> -WileyS
18:12:23 <Zakim> -hwest
18:12:38 <npdoty> rrsagent, make logs public
18:12:41 <Zakim> -eberkower
18:12:42 <Zakim> -[Apple]
18:12:43 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:12:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/20-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:13:10 <Zakim> -npdoty
18:13:13 <npdoty> Zakim, bye
18:13:13 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were +1.646.654.aaaa, rvaneijk, ninja, dwainberg, dsinger, eberkower, schunter, npdoty, Jack_Hobaugh, RichardWeaver, Joanne, Carl_Cargill,
18:13:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
18:13:17 <Zakim> ... WaltMichel, Ari, vinay, Jeff, justin, gshans, Chris_Pedigo, Fielding, hefferjr, kulick, sidstamm, SusanIsrael, moneill, Chapell, [FTC], Brooks, hwest, LeeTien, Peder_Magee,
18:13:17 <Zakim> ... Mike_Zaneis, WileyS, Chris_IAb
18:13:19 <npdoty> rrsagent, bye
18:13:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items