IRC log of dnt on 2013-12-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:43:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:43:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:43:49 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:43:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
16:43:51 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:43:51 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
16:43:52 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:43:52 [trackbot]
Date: 04 December 2013
16:47:05 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:54:13 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
16:55:33 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
16:55:37 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:56:04 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:56:12 [Zakim]
16:56:12 [Zakim]
16:56:12 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
16:56:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were WaltMichel
16:57:16 [npdoty]
npdoty has changed the topic to: agenda December 4:
16:57:35 [npdoty]
trackbot, start meeting
16:57:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:57:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:57:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
16:57:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, agenda?
16:57:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:57:40 [trackbot]
Date: 04 December 2013
16:57:41 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
16:57:49 [Dsinger]
Dsinger has joined #dnt
16:58:00 [npdoty]
agenda+ issue-153
16:58:07 [npdoty]
agenda+ issue-161
16:58:22 [npdoty]
agenda+ issue-197
16:58:33 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:58:40 [Zakim]
16:58:47 [Zakim]
16:59:36 [Zakim]
16:59:39 [npdoty]
agenda+ network transaction
16:59:47 [Zakim]
17:00:03 [Zakim]
17:00:04 [npdoty]
agenda+ issue-151
17:00:08 [ninja]
ninja has joined #dnt
17:00:11 [Zakim]
17:00:12 [Zakim]
17:00:17 [walter]
zakim, IPcaller is me
17:00:17 [Zakim]
+walter; got it
17:00:29 [Zakim]
17:00:44 [Zakim]
17:00:48 [_538]
_538 has joined #dnt
17:00:48 [justin]
zakim, cdt has me
17:00:48 [Zakim]
+justin; got it
17:00:51 [Zakim]
17:00:57 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:01:00 [Zakim]
+ +49.681.302.5.aaaa
17:01:05 [Zakim]
17:01:07 [Zakim]
17:01:12 [ninja]
zakim, aaaa is ninja
17:01:12 [Zakim]
+ninja; got it
17:01:13 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has me
17:01:13 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
17:01:29 [Dsinger]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:01:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see dsinger, Jack_Hobaugh, WaltMichel, Amy_Colando, Fielding, walter, Carl_Cargill, Peder_Magee, [CDT], hober, ninja, LeeTien, [Mozilla]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:01:32 [Zakim]
[CDT] has justin
17:01:32 [Zakim]
17:01:33 [Zakim]
17:01:39 [jeff]
jeff has joined #dnt
17:01:49 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
17:01:54 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
17:01:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.916.323.aabb
17:01:57 [Zakim]
17:01:59 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
17:02:11 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
17:02:16 [Zakim]
17:02:35 [Zakim]
17:02:39 [Zakim]
17:02:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.323.253.aacc
17:03:03 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
17:03:41 [npdoty]
Zakim, aacc is Ari
17:03:41 [Zakim]
+Ari; got it
17:03:41 [ninja]
Matthias will use my phone today, as we sit in the same conference room today
17:03:56 [justin]
zakim, ninja has schunter
17:03:56 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
17:03:58 [npdoty]
Zakim, aabb is Joanne_McNabb
17:03:58 [Zakim]
+Joanne_McNabb; got it
17:03:59 [Zakim]
17:04:06 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
17:04:16 [Zakim]
17:04:21 [bryan]
present+ Bryan_Sullivan
17:04:28 [Zakim]
17:04:35 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
17:04:50 [Zakim]
17:04:51 [ninja]
justin, he just arrived
17:04:55 [ninja]
one more minute
17:04:56 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
17:05:06 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
17:05:12 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:05:14 [Dsinger]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:05:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see dsinger, Jack_Hobaugh, WaltMichel, Amy_Colando, Fielding, walter, Carl_Cargill, Peder_Magee, [CDT], hober, ninja, LeeTien, [Mozilla], npdoty, Jeff,
17:05:17 [Zakim]
... Joanne_McNabb, RobSherman, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, kulick, moneill, Ari, Bryan_Sullivan, Wendy, Brooks, Chapell
17:05:17 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:05:17 [Zakim]
ninja has schunter
17:05:17 [Zakim]
[CDT] has justin
17:05:51 [npdoty]
scribenick: ninja
17:05:53 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
17:05:54 [Zakim]
17:06:01 [Zakim]
17:06:03 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
17:06:06 [npdoty]
with Amy to take over scribing halfway through
17:06:12 [npdoty]
thanks to Ninja and Amy for volunteering
17:06:15 [Zakim]
17:06:26 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft] is me
17:06:26 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
17:06:43 [johnsimpson]
Apologies. Traveling today. Only able to join on IRC.
17:06:50 [Dsinger]
Zakim, agenda?
17:06:50 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
17:06:52 [Zakim]
1. issue-153 [from npdoty]
17:06:52 [Zakim]
2. issue-161 [from npdoty]
17:06:52 [Zakim]
3. issue-197 [from npdoty]
17:06:52 [Zakim]
4. network transaction [from npdoty]
17:06:52 [Zakim]
5. issue-151 [from npdoty]
17:06:59 [ninja]
schunter: offline caller identification done. we can dive right in
17:07:23 [ninja]
... today mainly items from the batch closing, where I received comments
17:07:47 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
17:07:52 [johnsimpson]
17:07:56 [johnsimpson]
17:07:57 [ninja]
... my purpose is still to close them. Would like to address the concerns and find resolutions.
17:08:04 [Dsinger]
17:08:04 [trackbot]
Issue-153 -- What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? -- pending review
17:08:04 [trackbot]
17:08:15 [ninja]
... let's start with ISSUE 153
17:08:15 [npdoty]
Zakim, next agendum
17:08:15 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "issue-153" taken up [from npdoty]
17:08:16 [Zakim]
17:08:38 [ninja]
... to what extent can intermediaries change signals
17:09:20 [walter]
correction, it is ISSUE 163, not 153
17:09:37 [kulick]
17:09:45 [npdoty]
ack kulick
17:09:46 [Dsinger]
17:09:46 [trackbot]
Issue-163 -- How in the spec should we ensure user agents don't twist a user preference one way or another? -- raised
17:09:46 [trackbot]
17:09:51 [ninja]
... Currently the text is flexible on the topic of changing the signal. Brad wants to insert text making sure only user agents can send/change the signal
17:09:58 [WaltMichel]
WaltMichel has joined #DNT
17:10:01 [walter]
17:10:52 [ninja]
kulick: Want to make the spec more adoptable. Let's take the well established user interfaces of user agents to get mor trust of the users
17:10:54 [npdoty]
17:11:15 [moneill2]
17:11:16 [ninja]
schunter: So you have more concerns regarding the quality?
17:11:31 [Dsinger]
Notes that plugins have UI and are really very different from routers, proxies, etc.
17:12:01 [npdoty]
ack walter
17:12:02 [ninja]
kulick: Yes, main concern is how user would interact with intermediaries.
17:12:08 [Zakim]
17:12:11 [bryan]
17:12:32 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:13:11 [ninja]
walter: Think this is a non-issue. There is no way of verifying if a signal was inserted by an intermediary. So I would ask the websites to honor the signal that they receive
17:13:32 [fielding]
The suggested text changes have nothing to do with issue 163
17:13:33 [justin]
+1 to appreciation for providing specific text!
17:14:06 [walter]
+1 on guidance
17:14:23 [ninja]
npdoty: These recommendations won't actually control the market place. It may have bigger impact to not forbid plug-ins but to put restrictions on them.
17:14:30 [justin]
17:14:33 [kulick]
17:14:35 [npdoty]
17:14:38 [wseltzer]
ack moneill2
17:14:41 [wseltzer]
ack mo
17:15:05 [Zakim]
17:15:12 [ninja]
moneill: The tide is against user agent strings. Will be a problem to differentiate there.
17:15:37 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
17:15:40 [wseltzer]
s/on them/on them, and W3C shoudn't be restricting which technologies can implement a spec/
17:15:52 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #dnt
17:15:55 [justin]
ack br
17:16:01 [dsinger_]
17:16:10 [ninja]
... Exceptions could be established by the exception UI we have been discussing
17:16:23 [Zakim]
17:16:28 [Zakim]
17:16:35 [dsinger_]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
17:16:35 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
17:17:21 [ninja]
bryan: limiting the agents that are allowed will limit our own scope and will not be future-proof.
17:17:37 [fielding]
17:17:46 [fielding]
17:17:46 [trackbot]
issue-176 -- Requirements on intermediaries/isps and header insertion that might affect tracking -- closed
17:17:46 [trackbot]
17:17:54 [ninja]
... many examples of intermediaries that already work and are in support of the user.
17:17:56 [Chapell]
17:18:00 [Zakim]
17:18:14 [fielding]
17:18:14 [trackbot]
issue-177 -- Should we specify compliance requirements for software and hardware other than user agents? For example, is a web server package compliant if it tweaks DNT headers? -- raised
17:18:14 [trackbot]
17:18:23 [wseltzer]
17:18:24 [ninja]
... fundamental question is how to validate a DNT signal. We will not solve this in DNT.
17:18:29 [wseltzer]
ack ku
17:19:40 [fielding]
17:19:40 [trackbot]
issue-153 -- What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? -- pending review
17:19:40 [trackbot]
17:19:52 [ninja]
kulick: I hear the critique. The lack of actual control is an issue. I want to ensure that the manner in which we write the spec is the best manner for success
17:20:01 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
17:20:19 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:20:34 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
17:20:47 [justin]
17:20:54 [justin]
ack ds
17:20:56 [schunter]
17:21:03 [ninja]
... browsers have more insights on what we want to achieve in user interaction. What I am looking to do is being more prescriptive on how to communicate with the users.
17:21:25 [ninja]
kulick, sorry. Not sure if I got this wright
17:21:29 [ninja]
17:21:57 [dsinger]
An HTTP intermediary must not add, delete, or modify the DNT header field in requests forwarded through that intermediary unless that intermediary has been specifically installed or configured to do so by the user making the requests. For example, an Internet Service Provider must not inject DNT: 1 on behalf of all of their users who have not expressed a preference.
17:22:18 [ninja]
dsinger: I am concerned that websites may start ignoring DNT signals if they think it has been set by an intermediary
17:22:18 [bryan]
17:22:20 [walter]
+1 on dsinger
17:22:20 [npdoty]
kulick's change was about plugins:
17:22:22 [fielding]
He wants to change the … unless that … part.
17:22:35 [justin]
ack field
17:22:37 [npdoty]
Zakim, please close the queue
17:22:38 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
17:22:41 [npdoty]
“Likewise, a user agent extension or add-on MUST NOT alter the tracking preference.”
17:23:05 [dsinger]
+1 to Roy, re-visiting
17:23:27 [bryan]
"unless that intermediary has been specifically installed or configured to do so by the user making the requests" - "installed or configured" covers a wide range of arrangements on how the user's preference is expressed by an intermediary
17:23:27 [justin]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:23:37 [ninja]
fielding: We may be going back on old ground here. There was an unresolved issue in the June draft on user agent compliance.
17:23:43 [Zakim]
justin, listening for 14 seconds I heard sound from the following: Carl_Cargill (3%)
17:24:12 [Chapell]
17:24:18 [schunter]
17:24:26 [npdoty]
ack bryan
17:24:28 [ninja]
... I don't see the value in making this distinction. It will limit our options to set up restrictions for intermediaries.
17:25:08 [Zakim]
17:25:26 [ninja]
bryan: Current text can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Even intermediaries can be specifically installed and configured by the user.
17:25:44 [kulick]
17:27:10 [ninja]
schunter: I think we have consensus. Kulick is the only member of the group raising this concerns. If we later find out that we run into problems with intermediaries, we can revisit the text.
17:27:12 [npdoty]
Zakim, open the queue
17:27:12 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
17:27:18 [justin]
q+ kulick
17:27:22 [npdoty]
ack kulick
17:27:39 [ninja]
... If kulick would withdraw his objection, we can close this ISSUE
17:28:09 [ninja]
kulick: We need to be more prescriptive in how the choice is offered to users.
17:28:27 [bryan]
the points I make are general an not indicative of any position of my company - when I say "we are covered" under the current text, I mean that the group of stakeholders that I consider myself a member of, e.g. parents that care about how the web is used in their home, or users that want to ensure they don't have to manage DNT preferences in each and every device/browser/app they use
17:28:27 [Chapell]
+1 re: providing granularity in how choice should be offered
17:28:31 [Zakim]
17:28:44 [ninja]
schunter: Would a non-normative guidance, example URI be sufficient?
17:28:58 [schunter1]
schunter1 has joined #dnt
17:28:59 [npdoty]
if the concern is about user education, we may have a different issue on that
17:29:07 [schunter1]
17:29:10 [Zakim]
17:29:12 [ninja]
kulick: Want to avoid biased presentation
17:29:20 [ninja]
schunter: Agree.
17:29:47 [Zakim]
17:29:48 [fielding]
The spec says "unless that intermediary has been specifically installed or configured to do so by the user making the requests."
17:29:54 [ninja]
... dsinger, would it be possible to provide such an example of a model user agent?
17:30:07 [kulick]
I will provide feedback today
17:30:09 [kulick]
17:30:09 [schunter1]
17:30:13 [justin]
Yes, the existing language seems fairly strong.
17:30:14 [npdoty]
Zakim, next agendum
17:30:14 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "issue-161" taken up [from npdoty]
17:30:23 [ninja]
... looking forward to kulick's message later if we can close this issue.
17:30:31 [fielding]
17:30:31 [trackbot]
issue-161 -- Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance? -- pending review
17:30:31 [trackbot]
17:30:37 [ninja]
17:30:40 [npdoty]
kulick, issue-194 might be relevant to your related concern
17:31:01 [ninja]
schunter: Next up, ISSUE-161
17:31:29 [fielding]
overtaken by events
17:31:31 [kulick]
thx Nick, I will review 194
17:31:38 [ninja]
... Do we need a signal for partial compliance. The current status is either fully or not compliant.
17:31:54 [ninja]
... To us it was unclear how partial compliance could look like
17:32:13 [fielding]
17:32:36 [npdoty]
ack fielding
17:33:22 [dsinger]
17:33:39 [ninja]
fielding: Last week when I edited the TPE I removed this, as there is no way to define partial compliance within a self-contained TPE document
17:34:09 [npdoty]
is dwainberg on the call? he had asked that this be kept open
17:34:28 [wseltzer]
zakim, who is here?
17:34:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jack_Hobaugh, WaltMichel, Amy_Colando, Fielding, walter, Peder_Magee, [CDT], hober, ninja, LeeTien, [Mozilla], npdoty, Jeff, Joanne_McNabb, RobSherman,
17:34:32 [Zakim]
... Andrew_Kirkpatrick, kulick, moneill, Ari, Bryan_Sullivan, Wendy, Brooks, Chapell, hefferjr, adrianba, rvaneijk, Susan_Israel, hwest, [Apple], David_MacMillan, Carl_Cargill,
17:34:32 [Zakim]
... MECallahan
17:34:32 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:34:32 [Zakim]
ninja has schunter
17:34:32 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
17:34:32 [Zakim]
[CDT] has justin
17:34:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schunter1, dsinger, hwest, susanisrael, WaltMichel, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, Brooks, Chapell, kj, adrianba, bryan, kulick, vinay, Ari, moneill2, robsherman, jeff,
17:34:36 [Zakim]
... sidstamm, _538, ninja, npdoty, JackHobaugh, justin, fielding, Zakim
17:34:40 [ninja]
schunter: I would like to discuss this Issue based on the TPE draft as it was last week and postpone the discussion on the editorial changes
17:34:54 [fielding]
I raised this issue
17:35:31 [npdoty]
or have it mean "in testing" (which would also imply non-compliance)
17:35:42 [walter]
npdoty: +1
17:35:42 [justin]
Well, I think this is all related to the idea of multiple compliance regimes.
17:35:48 [justin]
17:35:49 [dsinger]
"under construction, making no particular claims"
17:35:51 [justin]
ack ds
17:35:52 [dsinger]
17:35:56 [ninja]
schunter: let us push this to next week as I need to contact dwainberg for clarification.
17:35:58 [npdoty]
I think there were lots of people interested in an "in testing" flag, fielding, though I appreciate your having brought it up originally
17:35:58 [walter]
justin: that too, if we have that this issue is even mooter than it is now
17:36:00 [dsinger]
17:36:00 [trackbot]
issue-197 -- How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received? -- pending review
17:36:00 [trackbot]
17:36:05 [npdoty]
Zakim, next agendum
17:36:05 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "issue-197" taken up [from npdoty]
17:36:23 [ninja]
schunter: Now ISSUE-197. How to notify a user on a disregard signal
17:36:47 [dsinger]
"An origin server that sends this tracking status value must detail within the server's corresponding privacy policy the conditions under which a tracking preference might be disregarded.
17:36:48 [dsinger]
17:36:48 [walter]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:36:59 [Zakim]
walter, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ninja (90%)
17:37:40 [ninja]
... Based on whatever context a site may decide to disregard the the user signal. It could be beneficial to tell the user why his signal has been disregarded
17:37:56 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
17:38:00 [fielding]
npdoty, yes, but without a single compliance document the testing mechanism is far easier -- just link to a testing compliance document.
17:38:16 [npdoty]
I think the diff is just to remove the Option box around "5.2.7 Disregarding"
17:38:52 [ninja]
JackHobaugh: I wasn't sure to close this because I needed to give it more thought.
17:38:55 [schunter1]
17:39:35 [walter]
17:39:50 [ninja]
schunter: Let's also push this back to next week. Fielding, did I represent the old status correctly, that a disregard-signal should be explained in the privacy policy?
17:40:08 [amyc]
Ninja, I can start scribing with next agenda item
17:40:09 [ninja]
fielding: Yes. It has not been changed in the current draft.
17:40:23 [ninja]
amyc, yes. thank you
17:40:29 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh, what were your additional questions? (this has been stable text for many months, right?)
17:40:48 [Brooks]
that becomes circular - if you are not in compliance then the "D" signal itself means nothing
17:40:52 [ninja]
Walter: I think a site that disregards signals cannot claim compliance.
17:40:55 [fielding]
17:41:06 [dsinger]
Roy deleted this sentence "An origin server that always responds with D is not considered compliant even if that response is compelled by factors beyond the origin server's control. "
17:41:27 [dsinger]
17:41:31 [fielding]
"Note that the D tracking status value is meant to be used only in situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception to normal behavior. An origin server that responds with D in ways that are inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims regarding tracking is likely to be considered misleading."
17:41:51 [rvaneijk]
+1 to Walter
17:42:01 [ninja]
Schunter: Understand your concerns. Unless you send a disregard signal you have to be compliant.
17:42:12 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
17:42:20 [fielding]
dsinger, right.
17:42:43 [JackHobaugh]
yes, we need to separate compliance issues from the TPE
17:42:52 [ninja]
dsinger: A server always sending disregard should not be able to claim compliance. It is a hole we should close.
17:43:01 [susanisrael]
I think walter is proposing invalidating the use of the disregard signal. he is saying there is no valid reason to disregard a dnt signal. Is that right?
17:43:12 [Zakim]
17:43:34 [susanisrael]
17:43:34 [dsinger]
correction: the old TPE said that; we may need something similar but that isn't a formal link to compliance.
17:43:36 [fielding]
17:43:38 [dsinger]
17:43:51 [schunter1]
ack wal
17:43:54 [npdoty]
ack susanisrael
17:44:11 [fielding]
As written in spec: "An origin server that responds with D in ways that are inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims regarding tracking is likely to be considered misleading."
17:44:18 [Zakim]
17:44:23 [Zakim]
17:44:50 [ninja]
walter: It is important that unless the server sends disregard they have to be compliant as they claim.
17:44:53 [Brooks]
+1 You can't have a signal that the use of makes you non-compliant
17:45:03 [kulick]
+1 to susan's point
17:45:12 [justin]
This seems like a question of semantics. You're compliant with the spec but you're not complying with the DNT:1 request.
17:45:24 [susanisrael]
Justin, I think you are right.
17:45:24 [npdoty]
maybe we're confused about "compliant": you're not complying with the expressed preference, but you could still be compliant with a set of rules
17:45:32 [npdoty]
+1 justin
17:45:49 [ninja]
susanisrael: Don't understand what walter means. Does in your view disregard means yu contradict the claim of compliance?
17:46:48 [fielding]
and this is why specs talk about conformance to requirements instead of compliance
17:46:58 [ninja]
walter: I am fine with a site claiming being compliant, but whenever they send disregard - the site is not compliant for this specific session
17:47:47 [ninja]
susanisrael, So the site is overall compliant but thinks they received an invalid signal.
17:47:53 [npdoty]
fielding, you think we should say "conformant to the spec, non-compliant with the request"?
17:48:06 [justin]
What the user does probably depends on what the user agent does in response to the disregard signal.
17:48:39 [ninja]
walter: Should be clear to the user that with a disregard signal received, he will probably being tracked
17:48:42 [fielding]
npdoty, I think we already cover this in the spec to the extent we can without creating a universal compliance document
17:48:55 [susanisrael]
I agree with Justin's and Nick's restatements, but I still think walter is saying you can never disregard a signal and be deemed a party (not site) that is compliant with the spec. I don't agree with that idea.
17:49:03 [amyc]
matthias: Issue 217 and 228
17:49:08 [npdoty]
fielding, I'm asking about your suggestions on phrasing
17:49:14 [npdoty]
Zakim, next agendum
17:49:14 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "network transaction" taken up [from npdoty]
17:49:27 [ninja]
scribenick: amyc
17:49:29 [npdoty]
I think this is just an announcement
17:49:36 [amyc]
Carl: where do we leave prior issue, raised by Roy, some confusion on agenda
17:50:02 [walter]
susanisrael: from a user's perspective if you're tracking him/her (for whatever reason), you're tracking. It is the opposite of DNT to say that tracking can be DNT-compliant.
17:50:06 [amyc]
Justin: there is time to respond, wanted to say something about issue 151, share status
17:50:08 [fielding]
17:50:09 [trackbot]
issue-151 -- User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request -- open
17:50:09 [trackbot]
17:50:15 [npdoty]
Call for Objections on 217/228 is
17:50:23 [amyc]
Carl: we can discuss 151
17:50:25 [npdoty]
comments requested by December 18th
17:50:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, agenda?
17:50:39 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
17:50:40 [Zakim]
4. network transaction [from npdoty]
17:50:40 [Zakim]
5. issue-151 [from npdoty]
17:50:41 [susanisrael]
walter: the user may not have asked not to be tracked. That may be why the signal was not deemed valid.
17:50:49 [npdoty]
Zakim, next agendum
17:50:49 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "issue-151" taken up [from npdoty]
17:51:08 [amyc]
justin: options for 151, user agent must, should or may respond to request or no language at all
17:51:10 [npdoty]
17:51:25 [npdoty]
17:51:29 [walter]
susanisrael: there's no way of telling that from the server's end. And in an EU context the user doesn't need to express any preference not to be tracked.
17:51:36 [amyc]
npdoty: two options for 151, inserting
17:51:54 [dsinger]
I thought the call for options closed ages ago?
17:51:56 [walter]
susanisrael: if you don't send a disregard signal and claim compliance, you must adhere to the compliance spec
17:52:24 [susanisrael]
walter: i was not thinking about the eu context but was suggesting that it doesn't make sense to include in the spec an option that makes the party that uses it non compliant. It's just illogical.
17:52:40 [amyc]
Matthias: in last call, cannot find consensus whether no language means implicitly mandatory or implicitly optional
17:52:40 [dsinger]
17:52:43 [dsinger]
17:52:45 [justin]
ack npd
17:52:58 [fielding]
I am pretty sure that Shane's proposal is an explicit MUST
17:53:13 [justin]
Yes, I think that was clear from last week's call.
17:53:13 [amyc]
... some disagreement amongst standards experts, so suggesting more explicit language
17:53:13 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:53:22 [kulick]
Roy, yes, we are a MUST
17:53:25 [dsinger]
17:53:28 [susanisrael]
walter: i do agree that if you don't send a disregard signal and claim compliance you must honor the signal.
17:53:36 [npdoty]
I think we're more likely to reach consensus with no changes to the text, which I believe has support from Shane and others
17:53:39 [walter]
susanisrael: that is my point, if you do not claim compliance for a user whose signal you disregard, you don't need a disregard signal.
17:53:53 [npdoty]
ack dsinger
17:53:56 [amyc]
Justin: proposal from Shane, should be more clear that there is must
17:54:11 [Zakim]
17:54:11 [amyc]
Dsinger: time for text submissions has closed
17:54:21 [fielding]
I don't think this one was closed
17:54:31 [Zakim]
17:54:44 [susanisrael]
walter: and my point was that many people requested the inclusion of a disregard signal. You're just saying you don't want to include it. If that's your point, we should have a discussion about that, though I thought we already agreed to include it.
17:54:48 [amyc]
... compliance depends on what you state, doesn't have anything to do with exceptions API, depends on what you claim you are doing - so happy with Shane's proposal to be silent
17:55:20 [amyc]
Justin: list of proposals due to be closed today, thought Shane wanted MUST to be more clearly reflected in document
17:55:24 [walter]
susanisrael: I am not saying I don't want it included. I'm pretty agnostic to its inclusion. As long as none claims compliance while disregarding a signal without a disregard response.
17:55:24 [kulick]
17:55:30 [npdoty]
do we have Shane on the call? I thought last call he agreed with me on not adding text
17:55:41 [amyc]
Schunter: but Shane did not submit text, not clear
17:55:56 [npdoty]
and Shane expressed hope that David could support it as well, which I'm hopeful of
17:56:05 [susanisrael]
walter: ok, I am ok with that. I think we can agree that if you disregard you have to send the disregard signal.
17:56:08 [walter]
susanisrael: from a user's perspectif a 'disregard signal' or a 'non-compliance signal' are equivalent
17:56:13 [fielding]
Nobody claims to implement a document.
17:56:33 [amyc]
schunter: if site receives DNT signal, should be confident that it can call API, per Shane
17:56:38 [walter]
+1 to what dsinger says
17:56:39 [susanisrael]
walter: If we stop the discussion before your last comment I think we are in agreement. So let's stop there.
17:57:06 [kulick]
david, that's not a fair or accurate assessment
17:57:08 [fielding]
dsinger, arguing that is counterproductive. The spec can link them. Shane wants to link them, so your opinion doesn't reduce the options.
17:57:15 [Zakim]
17:57:15 [amyc]
dsinger: but browser may not have javascript enabled, so API won't work, could turn out to be excuse to ignore more signals
17:57:17 [npdoty]
I think the understanding was that a UA can't implement the full TPE without implementing the JavaScript API.
17:57:25 [npdoty]
17:57:50 [amyc]
Justin: that is POV that can be expressed in CFO, shouldn't have spec that can be interpreted different ways
17:57:52 [dsinger]
I agree with Nick: If you claim to implement TPE, then you implement exceptions.
17:57:53 [walter]
npdoty: that was never my understanding and was the origin of my original opposition to javascript as a vehicle for UGE
17:58:29 [walter]
17:58:36 [amyc]
schunter: suggest to send around wiki, confirm whether these are options on table, so Shane can speak for himself, then can proceed to CFO
17:58:50 [npdoty]
walter, the other proposed option (from johnsimpson) is to make it explicitly optional, which might fit your view
17:58:54 [npdoty]
ack kulick
17:58:55 [amyc]
... is this the final list, is there anything that was overlooked, if not then go to CFO
17:59:05 [Zakim]
17:59:28 [fielding]
Suggested text: "An implementation that generates a DNT header field MUST also implement the User Granted Exceptions API in Section X to enable the user to override their general preference".
17:59:30 [amyc]
kulick: confirms that reminder to be sent to list today, then proceed with CFO, then we are OK
17:59:45 [npdoty]
ack walter
17:59:47 [dsinger]
There is no functional difference between a UA that (a) has JS disabled by the user (b) implements and always says no (possibly configured so by the user) and (c) doesn't implement them. In all these situations, the site cannot get the exception it wants, and will need to take whatever steps it feels warranted in the lack of the exception.
18:00:14 [kulick]
amye, i want to make sure that today still allows time for proposals
18:00:39 [amyc]
walter: looking at TPE text (?), what happens if call never returned, what if user turns off javascript
18:01:00 [amyc]
dsinger: then have to have none script element on page
18:01:09 [fielding]
dsinger, now you are arguing against the use of a javascript API for this functionality, which I agree is a concern.
18:01:14 [dsinger]
a 'noscript' element
18:01:17 [amyc]
18:01:37 [npdoty]
s/none script/noscript/
18:02:13 [npdoty]
I think there might be some confusion about "respond", walter
18:02:19 [dsinger]
can I review how the spec works?
18:02:27 [amyc]
schunter: if user grants exception, then browser sends DNT0 headers to site
18:02:29 [walter]
npdoty: sorry for being such a lousy technologist
18:02:46 [npdoty]
if the method doesn't exist, then calling it in javascript throws an exception; if the method exists, it's supposed to return void in any case
18:02:53 [fielding]
discussions of compliance are not terribly useful at this point
18:03:26 [dsinger]
it is worth reading before we discuss much more
18:03:47 [Zakim]
18:04:10 [amyc]
schunter: asks nick to send reminder to group for last chance to submit text
18:04:13 [dsinger]
18:04:15 [Zakim]
18:04:20 [Zakim]
18:04:38 [Zakim]
18:04:43 [Zakim]
18:04:48 [amyc]
schunter: done with agenda, proceed with chairs call
18:04:52 [Zakim]
18:05:01 [kulick]
what section?
18:05:01 [Zakim]
18:05:02 [npdoty]
Zakim, close agendum 5
18:05:02 [Zakim]
agendum 5, issue-151, closed
18:05:03 [Zakim]
I see nothing remaining on the agenda
18:05:05 [kulick]
18:05:12 [walter]
dsinger: apologies for not being up to speed on the text as I should, again
18:05:12 [npdoty]
kulick, dsinger is pointing to
18:05:19 [Zakim]
18:05:25 [Zakim]
18:05:28 [Zakim]
18:05:33 [Zakim]
18:05:37 [Zakim]
18:05:38 [Zakim]
18:05:40 [Zakim]
18:05:40 [Zakim]
18:05:41 [Zakim]
18:05:41 [Zakim]
18:05:42 [Zakim]
18:05:45 [Zakim]
18:05:45 [Zakim]
18:05:45 [Zakim]
18:05:45 [Zakim]
18:05:46 [Zakim]
18:05:52 [Zakim]
18:06:08 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
18:06:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been dsinger, Jack_Hobaugh, WaltMichel, Amy_Colando, Fielding, Carl_Cargill, walter, Peder_Magee, justin, hober, +49.681.302.5.aaaa, LeeTien,
18:06:11 [Zakim]
... sidstamm, npdoty, Jeff, +1.916.323.aabb, RobSherman, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, kulick, moneill, +1.323.253.aacc, Ari, schunter, Joanne_McNabb, Bryan_Sullivan, Wendy, Brooks, Chapell,
18:06:11 [Zakim]
... [FTC], hefferjr, adrianba, rvaneijk, Susan_Israel, hwest, David_MacMillan, MECallahan, [Microsoft]
18:06:11 [Zakim]
18:06:15 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
18:06:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
18:06:36 [Zakim]
18:07:08 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
18:07:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
18:07:12 [Zakim]
18:07:14 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:07:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were dsinger, Jack_Hobaugh, WaltMichel, Amy_Colando, Fielding, Carl_Cargill, walter, Peder_Magee, justin, hober, +49.681.302.5.aaaa, LeeTien, sidstamm, npdoty, Jeff,
18:07:14 [Zakim]
... +1.916.323.aabb, RobSherman, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, kulick, moneill, +1.323.253.aacc, Ari, schunter, Joanne_McNabb, Bryan_Sullivan, Wendy, Brooks, Chapell, [FTC], hefferjr,
18:07:15 [Zakim]
... adrianba, rvaneijk, Susan_Israel, hwest, David_MacMillan, MECallahan, [Microsoft]
18:07:30 [npdoty]
chair: schunter
18:07:32 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
18:07:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
18:24:29 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
19:21:12 [jeff_]
jeff_ has joined #dnt
20:29:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt
21:55:14 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
23:26:21 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt