IRC log of dnt on 2014-01-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:48:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:48:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:48:30 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:48:32 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:48:33 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:48:33 [trackbot]
Date: 22 January 2014
16:48:34 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
16:48:52 [npdoty]
Regrets+ BryanSullivan
16:49:19 [npdoty]
Regrets+ dsinger
16:51:17 [jeff]
jeff has joined #dnt
16:52:54 [walter]
is there a way to get jabber authorisation on Zakim?
16:55:08 [npdoty]
Regrets+ ChrisPedigo
16:55:33 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
16:55:36 [GSHans]
GSHans has joined #dnt
16:55:40 [walter]
never mind
16:56:29 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:56:37 [Zakim]
16:57:01 [Zakim]
16:57:18 [ninja]
zakim, call ninja-mobile
16:57:18 [Zakim]
ok, ninja; the call is being made
16:57:20 [Zakim]
16:57:49 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:58:16 [ninja]
zakim,, mute me
16:58:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand ', mute me', ninja
16:58:17 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:58:31 [ninja]
zakim, mute Ninja
16:58:31 [Zakim]
Ninja should now be muted
16:58:45 [Zakim]
16:58:51 [Zakim]
16:59:19 [mecallahan]
mecallahan has joined #dnt
16:59:20 [Zakim]
16:59:20 [wseltzer]
zakim, ipcaller is moneill2
16:59:21 [Zakim]
+moneill2; got it
17:00:33 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
17:00:39 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
17:00:47 [Zakim]
17:00:47 [Zakim]
17:00:52 [Zakim]
17:01:29 [carlcargill]
carlcargill has joined #dnt
17:01:30 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
17:01:30 [wseltzer]
zakim, agenda?
17:01:31 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
17:01:32 [Zakim]
1. Confirmation of scribe [from ninja]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
3. ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? [from ninja]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
4. ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context? [from ninja]
17:01:33 [Zakim]
5. ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) [from ninja]
17:01:33 [Zakim]
6. AoB [from ninja]
17:01:39 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
17:02:11 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
17:02:14 [Zakim]
17:02:18 [Chris_IAB]
just joined the line
17:02:18 [Zakim]
17:02:21 [Zakim]
17:02:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.366.aaaa
17:02:27 [wseltzer]
zakim, ??p40 is Chris_IAB
17:02:27 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB; got it
17:02:28 [GSHans]
Zakim, [CDT] has me
17:02:29 [Zakim]
+GSHans; got it
17:02:34 [GSHans]
zakim, mute GSHans
17:02:34 [Zakim]
sorry, GSHans, I do not know which phone connection belongs to GSHans
17:02:36 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
17:02:39 [GSHans]
zakim, mute [CDT]
17:02:39 [Zakim]
[CDT] should now be muted
17:02:42 [eberkower]
Zakim, aaaa is eberkower
17:02:42 [Zakim]
+eberkower; got it
17:02:52 [Zakim]
17:03:11 [eberkower]
Zakim, mute me, please
17:03:11 [Zakim]
eberkower should now be muted
17:03:16 [GSHans]
I can scribe til 1245
17:03:20 [Zakim]
17:03:21 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
17:03:24 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
17:03:28 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
17:03:30 [moneill2]
ill give it a go
17:03:42 [Zakim]
17:03:42 [npdoty]
scribenick: GSHans
17:03:49 [Zakim]
17:04:00 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:04:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, Wendy, Ninja (muted), moneill2, Jack_Hobaugh, Jeff, vincent, Ari, Carl_Cargill, Chris_IAB, kulick, [CDT] (muted), eberkower (muted), hwest, dwainberg,
17:04:04 [Zakim]
... Fielding, MECallahan
17:04:04 [Zakim]
[CDT] has GSHans
17:04:12 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
17:04:13 [Zakim]
17:04:16 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has me
17:04:16 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
17:04:40 [npdoty]
carlcargill, you might need to get us started, as justin may be having trouble connecting while traveling
17:04:40 [Zakim]
17:04:50 [walter]
zakim, ipcaller is me
17:04:50 [Zakim]
+walter; got it
17:05:02 [Zakim]
17:05:13 [Zakim]
17:05:13 [justin]
zakim, ip caller is me
17:05:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'ip caller is me', justin
17:05:19 [npdoty]
Zakim, ipcaller is justin
17:05:19 [Zakim]
+justin; got it
17:05:28 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
17:05:29 [npdoty]
chair: justin, carlcargill
17:05:34 [Zakim]
17:05:48 [Zakim]
17:05:55 [ninja]
17:05:55 [walter]
justin: either your connection is awful, or mine
17:06:01 [walter]
or both, of course
17:06:12 [Zakim]
17:06:13 [GSHans]
i am scribing
17:06:15 [walter]
ok, then it is my lousy hotel wifi
17:06:18 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:06:27 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
17:06:28 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Confirmation of scribe" taken up [from ninja]
17:06:31 [fielding]
17:06:31 [trackbot]
issue-239 -- Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? -- raised
17:06:31 [trackbot]
17:06:34 [npdoty]
Zakim, close agendum 1
17:06:34 [Zakim]
agendum 1, Confirmation of scribe, closed
17:06:35 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:06:35 [Zakim]
2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
17:06:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 3
17:06:39 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference?" taken up [from ninja]
17:06:40 [ninja]
17:06:44 [Zakim]
17:07:01 [GSHans]
Justin: First issue - ISSUE-239. Technically supposed to go to CfO today. NPDoty was the only person opposed to Roy's proposal.
17:07:26 [Zakim]
17:07:38 [Zakim]
17:07:44 [walter]
zakim, ipcaller is me
17:07:46 [Zakim]
+walter; got it
17:08:03 [GSHans]
NPDoty: Sent a quick email about ISSUE-241. Others had expressed concerns about Roy's proposal and I suggested that people would possibly prefer a 241 solution. I think that is the case. It would be descriptive and not in conflict with Roy's. I prefer Proposal 2, for compliance regimes, for the reasons previously enumerated.
17:08:14 [Zakim]
17:08:18 [Chapell]
17:08:28 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
17:08:34 [WileyS]
On the side of keeping the array - makes complete sense for real-world applications
17:09:15 [Chapell]
17:09:15 [justin]
17:09:21 [vincent]
WileyS, why using qualifiers would not?
17:09:31 [GSHans]
NPDoty: Concern that we'll give less clarity to users if we can't explain a single compliance concept back to them at this time, and not sure what user agents would do with an array, except for doing white-listing or black-listing. Thus there would be an advantage in defining compliance.
17:09:45 [schunter]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:09:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, Wendy, Ninja (muted), moneill2, Jack_Hobaugh, Jeff, vincent, Ari, Carl_Cargill, Chris_IAB, kulick, [CDT] (muted), eberkower (muted), hwest, dwainberg,
17:09:48 [Zakim]
... Fielding, MECallahan, [Mozilla], justin, Chapell, WileyS, hefferjr, SusanIsrael, hober, walter, ??P7
17:09:48 [Zakim]
[CDT] has GSHans
17:09:48 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:09:54 [WileyS]
Vincent, qualifiers in the response? I was thinking of this being in a well-known URI address by domain
17:10:16 [Zakim]
17:10:20 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
17:10:22 [fielding]
reiterate that having an array of links does not change the number of compliance regimes -- it only communicates them to the user.
17:10:39 [Zakim]
17:10:46 [GSHans]
Justin: Those are understandable. Local compliance regimes make sense (DAA wants to do one), other JXs may want a more rigorous standard applied to European data flows. Given that there has been controversy surrounding the compliance spec in the group, this gives more ability to set that.
17:11:21 [Chris_IAB]
still not sure I understand Nick's proposal: can you please post it?
17:11:24 [GSHans]
Justin: Does anyone agree that NPDoty's approach to link to compliance standard is the way to go, or go with Roy's array to indicate possible different compliance regimes.
17:11:25 [susanisrael]
17:11:49 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
17:12:00 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB, I'll try to dig out the links where I've described it a couple times in the past
17:12:00 [Chris_IAB]
and is Roy's in writing where we can read it before casting a preference?
17:12:04 [walter]
I prefer the link approach
17:12:05 [vincent]
WileyS, what's the point of having them in the URI rather than in the response?
17:12:18 [GSHans]
Justin: NPDoty proposed not having a link to how one would comply, but rather a signal of compliance or non-compliance.
17:12:23 [justin]
17:12:25 [WaltMichel]
WaltMichel has joined #DNT
17:12:29 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB, the editors' draft text since Thanksgiving shows fielding's proposed text
17:12:41 [npdoty]
the wiki provides brief summary:
17:12:46 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, thanks-- can we cut and paste it here?
17:13:05 [Chris_IAB]
thanks- that's very helpful Nick
17:13:08 [Chris_IAB]
reading now...
17:13:19 [GSHans]
SusanIsrael: Could a resource indicate that it's making use of one or two of permitted uses?
17:13:20 [justin]
ack susan
17:13:28 [Zakim]
17:13:31 [GSHans]
NPdoty: There would be optional qualifiers that you could use more than one of.
17:13:42 [Chris_IAB]
would love to hear from Roy on this...
17:14:09 [GSHans]
NPDoty: ... had preferred that indicate a particular type of compliance in the tracking status resource, rather than allowing potentially for an array.
17:14:54 [GSHans]
SusanIsrael: I understand the logic of NPDoty's approach and support that, but also could go with the opportunity to use the array of permitted uses, as long as that's optional and there can be more than one. Believe that Chris and Rob support that.
17:15:04 [Chris_IAB]
could Roy's approach be documented as a "good practice"?
17:15:22 [GSHans]
Justin: There would still be a pointer to an optional regime - is that different from Roy's proposal? Not sure that there is a distinction there.
17:15:22 [justin]
17:15:52 [GSHans]
SusanIsrael: Not sure if I understand fielding's proposal either.
17:16:22 [npdoty]
I documented my concerns on fielding's multiple compliance proposal here:
17:16:53 [GSHans]
fielding: First we should talk about this one issue - 239 (whether we should have a link to one or more compliance docs in the tracking status representation. Do we believe indicating in the TPE talks about the compliance in terms of W3C tracking compliance specification. is there an assumption that everything is defined by the compliance doc? ...
17:17:26 [GSHans]
fielding:: or it may be possible that there may be multiple compliance docs in the universe that sites might want to refer to besides the W3C one, or that there are multiple versions of the W3C one that might be adopted over time, and the site would have to say which it was thinking of...
17:18:24 [GSHans]
fielding: ... if we all had perfect consensus on v1 of tracking compliance spec, but discovered that a particular org had found a loophole and was claiming compliance in an unsuitable way, so we decided on a new version. now we have two specs, and sites want to declare that they adhere to the second one rather than just the first...
17:19:15 [justin]
17:19:18 [justin]
17:19:32 [npdoty]
PICS- or P3P-style
17:19:40 [GSHans]
fielding: ... that's the kind of thing that happens with protocols. want to communicate as much transparency as possible. Could include a version status, could add a field that describes all types of compliance, but in this case all that we're doing is giving opportunity to sites to make a list of links that would indicate where or what compliance regimes or regulations they're adhering to...
17:19:51 [justin]
17:20:07 [Zakim]
17:20:33 [GSHans]
fielding ... that list is an "and "list, so if there's more than one, you can adhere to more than one. this allows sites to implement tracking status signaling mechanism and not find issues down the road with a new compliance spec.
17:20:35 [Chris_IAB]
That seems reasonable to me
17:20:42 [GSHans]
Justin: Follow up Qs for fielding or NPDoty?
17:21:07 [Chris_IAB]
not really understanding why npdoty prefers to remain silent on this issue?
17:21:44 [susanisrael]
17:21:55 [GSHans]
Justin: Previous calls seemed to show more support for fielding's proposal. If there are people besides NPDoty who want to go with his approach, OK to keep open for a few more days. If npdoty is the only one who supports, he has agreed to just move forward with fielding's proposal...
17:22:08 [susanisrael]
Justin, I think Chris and rob may want to comment, so leaving this open for a few more days would be helpful.
17:22:29 [npdoty]
indeed, I think my repetitively bringing this up doesn't qualify as "silent" ;)
17:22:33 [Zakim]
17:22:43 [GSHans]
Justin: OK to not move to CFO or closing right way, to see what work might done on npdoty's going forward.
17:22:45 [Chris_IAB]
Notin favor of pigeon holing compliance to W3C only
17:23:07 [Chris_IAB]
which Chris??
17:23:20 [Zakim]
17:23:26 [ninja]
ack susan
17:23:26 [npdoty]
well, normally we have the practice of a 2-week notice to the mailing list in case people have been traveling and have objections we didn't realize
17:23:28 [susanisrael]
Chris pedigo. But feel free to join discussion
17:23:34 [walter]
zakim, p26 is me
17:23:34 [Zakim]
sorry, walter, I do not recognize a party named 'p26'
17:23:41 [justin]
17:23:48 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
17:23:49 [justin]
(who is in the working group)
17:23:52 [walter]
zakim, +??P26 is me
17:23:52 [Zakim]
sorry, walter, I do not recognize a party named '+??P26'
17:23:56 [Chris_IAB]
Thanks Susan… to the chair, please specify WHICH "Chris" you are referring to :)
17:24:13 [susanisrael]
Nick did reach out to us and we did support his proposal, but I feel I can't articulate the whole discussion adequately.
17:24:18 [GSHans]
CarlCargill: What is the minimal amount of support needed to make a proposal? How do we close and move on, or do we just wait?
17:24:31 [wseltzer]
zakim, ??P26 is Walter
17:24:32 [Zakim]
+Walter; got it
17:24:38 [walter]
wseltzer: thanks
17:24:38 [susanisrael]
Carl, I apologize, but I think just a couple more days would be helpful. I don't think this is a deliberate delay.
17:24:41 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:24:46 [susanisrael]
17:24:53 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: justin (100%), SusanIsrael (4%)
17:25:27 [susanisrael]
* Apologies, i was typing.
17:25:51 [susanisrael]
I think we would be able to resolve this today but both Chris Pedigo and Rob Sherman are traveling today and would like to have a couple more things to say.
17:26:02 [GSHans]
Justin: Don't think that people are trying to deliberately delay. There is some effort to work it out. For years we had assumed that the two documents would be closely linked, so we are now radically changing that.
17:26:10 [susanisrael]
Thank you, Justin
17:26:21 [npdoty]
my understanding is that there may be some people who don't object either way, but that's distinct
17:26:22 [npdoty]
17:26:30 [susanisrael]
It's really a scheduling issue.
17:26:57 [susanisrael]
I think focus was lost a bit over holidays, and that is the other reason a few more days might be helpful.
17:26:58 [GSHans]
CarlCargill: NPdoty, what will it take to communicate that we're going to CFO or have consensus?
17:27:25 [justin]
ack npd
17:27:36 [fielding]
I thought we just did that.
17:27:40 [susanisrael]
17:28:03 [GSHans]
NPDoty: It's up to chairs but we tend to alert over the list.
17:28:15 [GSHans]
CarlCargill: What would indicate support or no support?
17:28:36 [susanisrael]
I think if we hear Rob and Chris join Nick in this discussion and the group reacts we can resolve it.
17:28:39 [GSHans]
NPDoty: There is some interest in this issue.
17:28:53 [fielding]
that is a DIFFERENT issue
17:28:54 [GSHans]
CarlCargill: Let's have that specified by Friday.
17:29:01 [Chris_IAB]
how about we issue a group-wide poll?
17:29:36 [GSHans]
SusanIsrael: Want to hear thoughts from people beyond NPDoty - e.g. Rob and Chris - there might be a chance to get more of a reaction.
17:29:40 [Chris_IAB]
keep in mind our attendance is low this week due to the short US week (MLK holiday) and folks taking vacation this week
17:30:00 [Chris_IAB]
17:30:02 [GSHans]
CarlCargill: Let's say before next week, it's incumbent to NPDoty to determine if we have enough objection, otherwise we'll close next week.
17:30:06 [Chris_IAB]
17:30:14 [justin]
ack chris
17:31:16 [susanisrael]
I don't think I adquately understood the context of the discussion on this issue when I participated, so I am reluctant to represent others.
17:31:25 [GSHans]
Chris_IAB: Just hearing the debate there, if the Q is re: are there documents outside W3c, that's something pretty pivotal.
17:31:43 [npdoty]
that's also the purpose of the we're-closing-this-in-2-weeks reminder email
17:31:43 [GSHans]
Justin: would prefer to not do a group-wide poll.
17:31:47 [walter]
sort of a straw poll?
17:32:08 [npdoty]
... to catch up people who have missed multiple weeks of discussion
17:32:12 [fielding]
The question is whether compliance is explicitly communicated to the user or implicitly tied to an undefined specification. The number or source of compliance has nothing to do with it because OTHER specs can add their own fields to TSR
17:32:45 [GSHans]
Chris_Iab: We could do a more "what do you think?" poll? less attendance today.
17:33:06 [npdoty]
17:33:10 [GSHans]
Justin: We'll try to close this if we're not getting much of a response.
17:34:00 [susanisrael]
I think I may have been confusing the two issues as well, apologies.
17:34:06 [GSHans]
NPDoty: there is another issue that we've been talking about (241) which indicates party status. But sending the email re: 2 weeks to close is the way to do notice.
17:34:08 [ninja]
17:34:09 [npdoty]
17:34:56 [npdoty]
the we're-closing-this-in-2-weeks reminder email tends to take 2 weeks
17:35:11 [susanisrael]
Thank you, Justin. Apologies, Nick for being a bit confused despite your taking the time to talk through this offline.
17:35:30 [GSHans]
Justin: OK to indicate still under discussion
17:35:31 [Chris_IAB]
seems reasonable
17:35:51 [ninja]
zakim, drop agendum 3
17:35:51 [Zakim]
agendum 3, ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference?, dropped
17:35:53 [npdoty]
Zakim, agenda?
17:35:53 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
17:35:55 [Zakim]
2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
17:35:55 [Zakim]
4. ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context? [from ninja]
17:35:55 [Zakim]
5. ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) [from ninja]
17:35:55 [Zakim]
6. AoB [from ninja]
17:35:55 [Zakim]
17:36:01 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 4
17:36:01 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context?" taken up [from ninja]
17:36:08 [fielding]
17:36:08 [trackbot]
issue-240 -- Do we need to define context? -- open
17:36:08 [trackbot]
17:36:22 [GSHans]
Justin: Next issue is 240. Do we need to define context? New proposal from Susan, Chris Pedigo, and Rob Sherman. SusanISrael, so you want to explain it? Closely tied to def of parties.
17:36:26 [ninja]
wiki -
17:36:52 [walter]
Question, how do people feel about the idea to let each party signal what context it believes to be operating in?
17:36:53 [JackHobaugh]
Regarding Issue-240 will there be a "NO NEED TO DEFINE" option presented in the call for objections?
17:36:59 [GSHans]
SusanIsrael: That's a reasonable assessment. Would prefer to have people read it and continue discussion on the list, or on next call.
17:37:07 [WileyS]
This is better
17:37:08 [walter]
(can't speak due to really poor internet connection)
17:37:47 [GSHans]
Justin: This seems to align with definition of parties, but you should take a look. OK to have "No def" as an option. JackHobaugh, can you send a note articulating that?
17:37:58 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh, that's been mentioned, but I'm not sure we have explicit support -- if you'd support that, let the group know
17:38:11 [justin]
17:38:15 [GSHans]
Justin: Had a lot of discussion on this issue last week. Not sure if there are other thoughts.
17:38:16 [ninja]
17:38:21 [GSHans]
ack ninja
17:38:22 [ninja]
zakim, unmute me
17:38:22 [Zakim]
Ninja was not muted, ninja
17:39:19 [fielding]
17:39:28 [GSHans]
Ninja: schunter sent an email to the list regarding the definitions on the wiki from an email on January 10.
17:40:07 [ninja]
I think this use case question may help the group to understand differences in the proposals
17:40:55 [GSHans]
Schunter: defs that were proposed except lifetime collection of things. If I have a widget on the site and visit periodically. Is widget allowed to retain data on visit history indefinitely? If for third parties, does it also mean that it can keep lifelong search history? May not meet user expectations regarding being tracked through multiple sessions.
17:41:49 [fielding]
just once is enough, unless the context is facebook
17:42:08 [GSHans]
Schunter: ... eg. FB, widget could know how often I visit FB over a long period of time. Users may not expect that kind of perpetual retention of visit data.
17:43:03 [GSHans]
Justin: FB widget could be like farmville. If Farmville knows I've visited FB... Is there a lesser meaning of signals to a first party? Seems contrary to discussions re: compliance and agreement, but if people want to propose that, context should degrade - that's an idea people can bring to the gropu.
17:44:01 [justin]
17:44:02 [GSHans]
Schunter: def of tracking should reflect user expectations, and compliance is the degree to which we meet that. Dependent on party status. Gut feeling would be that some users would be creeped out if there was lifetime history of visits.
17:44:15 [fielding]
we will probably have a long discussion about referral information at some point, but that is about compliance (I think the user would consider it tracking, as does the definition we have, but it might be permitted tracking)
17:44:37 [fielding]
17:44:38 [moneill2]
17:45:01 [npdoty]
so would it be useful for people who are proposing "context" definitions to answer schunter's scenario questions?
17:45:02 [GSHans]
Justin: Group members who like that persecutive should propose language.
17:45:02 [justin]
ack fi
17:45:10 [ninja]
fielding, it is not completely a compliance issue. If it's not “across contexts” it's out of scope from the beginning
17:45:28 [GSHans]
Fielding: if Q is should we add a notion of time to context, not sure if anyone would be wiling to go in that direction in terms of implementation, but it's worth considering.
17:45:31 [Chris_IAB]
time, as in context is ephemeral?
17:45:50 [GSHans]
schunter: could be something like subsequent network interactions. could be different contexts depending on time or technical means.
17:45:52 [Chris_IAB]
or… context is, in the moment?
17:46:04 [Chris_IAB]
yes, agree with Roy
17:46:09 [GSHans]
fielding: issue - how do we define in a way that is applicable to all sites. Many sites depend on the memory of context.
17:46:12 [GSHans]
can we switch scribes?
17:46:14 [Chris_IAB]
maintaining state is important for many applicatioins
17:46:26 [npdoty]
I think most of our work has assumed that a widget you interact with multiple times will remember even DNT:1 visitors
17:46:30 [walter]
the whole point of DNT is to make context ephemeral *again*
17:46:31 [GSHans]
fielding: would be much more constraining than discussions re: first party compliance.
17:46:44 [Zakim]
17:47:12 [GSHans]
schunter: important that tracking definitions reflect what users want.
17:47:21 [ninja]
17:47:24 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
17:47:26 [Chris_IAB]
17:47:27 [GSHans]
fielding: it should be discussed re: the need for a limit.
17:47:35 [justin]
ack mo
17:48:58 [GSHans]
moneill: context in data control. would be worth mentioning the idea of having a time limit. connected with the way tracking happens re: repeated transactions. there's usually a duration associated. DNT could mean that user IDs are linked for a period of time, whatever it is. it lays another layer of complexity.
17:49:05 [GSHans]
npdoty - can we switch scribes?
17:49:07 [fielding]
this is not an invitation to reopen ISSUE-5
17:49:32 [moneill2]
17:49:36 [npdoty]
scribenick: moneill2
17:49:47 [npdoty]
ack Chris_IAB
17:49:48 [justin]
ack chr
17:50:45 [fielding]
"within the scope of the service requested"?
17:51:04 [moneill2]
chris_IAB: agrre with mike, complexity may not be appropriate now, may make spec unimplementable, lets get v1 out, then maybe more complexity
17:51:34 [moneill2]
justin, email is thit part of context
17:51:53 [npdoty]
fielding, that seems to add ambiguity for cases where I might sign up for a service like Facebook (for years, or the rest of my life)
17:52:20 [moneill2]
chris_iab, revisit later if necessary
17:52:33 [justin]
17:52:36 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB: in favor of not adding time as a component of context
17:52:50 [moneill2]
ok later this evening
17:53:11 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 5
17:53:11 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3)" taken up [from ninja]
17:53:18 [Zakim]
17:53:46 [ninja]
ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3)
17:53:46 [trackbot]
Notes added to ISSUE-241 Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3).
17:54:54 [moneill2]
matthias: issue 241 about misuse taking site elements out of context 1 ir 3 not longer these rules maybe its a debuuging help, not 100% sure if we need it
17:55:13 [schunter]
17:55:16 [npdoty]
17:55:26 [schunter]
ack np
17:55:29 [moneill2]
mattgis: no strong opinion either way, if nobody strongly promiting I would drop them
17:55:30 [npdoty]
17:55:33 [Zakim]
17:56:41 [moneill2]
nick: i dropped text on list here it is. might be possible to supply informative qualfiers, isless about helping implementors but more about informing users
17:57:15 [moneill2]
nick: compliance implications in compliance regime
17:57:21 [schunter]
17:57:44 [moneill2]
matthias: opnions?
17:57:49 [fielding]
that text is compliance: "may be used"
17:57:52 [WileyS]
Neutral on this one - pros/cons in both directions
17:57:56 [moneill2]
carl: comments?
17:58:15 [npdoty]
17:58:34 [schunter]
ack np
17:58:47 [moneill2]
roy: it argues compliance it cannot be anything else, we are adding a lot more terms we need to explain. people will demand explanation
17:59:07 [Zakim]
17:59:19 [moneill2]
nick: roy pointing out ambiguity in my text, not using MAY in proper sense
17:59:39 [fielding]
it should be : tracking might occur for X
17:59:50 [moneill2]
nick: we do not need to define in great dsetail what debugging purpose should be
17:59:59 [npdoty]
thanks for that correction, I will correct for "might"
18:00:11 [moneill2]
matthia: is this v important req.. for you?
18:00:21 [Zakim]
18:01:21 [moneill2]
matthias: they may mix this up with 1sp p exception. Thuis does not make a difference for 1st or 3rd party compliance
18:01:36 [Zakim]
18:01:40 [Zakim]
18:02:05 [jeff]
jeff has joined #dnt
18:02:07 [moneill2]
mathias: my way forward is cCoE or batch closing email
18:02:20 [moneill2]
matthias: or just postpone
18:02:29 [moneill2]
car: lets not kick the can
18:02:33 [npdoty]
18:02:58 [Zakim]
18:03:10 [moneill2]
susanisrael: sevveral of these proposals need other input, lets wait till Friday
18:03:22 [moneill2]
mathhias: email to group
18:03:34 [moneill2]
carl: make it a group
18:03:35 [Zakim]
18:03:46 [justin]
zakim, ipcaller is me
18:03:46 [Zakim]
+justin; got it
18:03:48 [WileyS]
Thank you Matthias
18:03:56 [npdoty]
18:04:00 [moneill2]
carl: closed by 1st meet in Feb
18:04:05 [justin]
[Can we link this in with the email that goes to the group on 239?
18:04:20 [moneill2]
matthias: i will send note
18:04:41 [justin]
ack npd
18:04:45 [Zakim]
18:05:36 [moneill2]
nick: ahead of ourselves here. lrets have initial changes today, early on only an hour to review text.
18:05:48 [fielding]
npdoty, your email used the wrong issue number -- that is issue-241
18:05:57 [moneill2]
matthias: final call next week CfO 2 weeks
18:06:23 [ninja]
I will create a wiki page
18:06:38 [moneill2]
matthias: lets go CfO in 2 weeks, final text next, 241 or 239
18:06:53 [moneill2]
carl: this is 241
18:06:57 [npdoty]
apologies, my email says issue-241 in the Subject line, but I see that I said "239" in the body, which I shouldn't have
18:07:09 [moneill2]
18:07:18 [justin]
Sorry about suggestion to link 239 and 241!
18:07:19 [Chris_IAB]
I always like keep it simple, but I'd like time to study it
18:07:24 [justin]
ack mo
18:07:39 [JackHobaugh]
Based on the milestone confusion for Issue 241, can I get a clarification on the status of Issue-240 also?
18:07:52 [npdoty]
moneill2: sent something about regarding making the whole thing simpler
18:08:16 [ninja]
18:08:28 [Chris_IAB]
+1 to Jack's request above
18:08:39 [moneill2]
ninja: will get back to me
18:08:40 [fielding]
do we have a wiki page on 241?
18:08:45 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh, I believe the milestones were to have all the Context proposals in today, and try to narrow them down and go to CfO next week if necessary
18:09:00 [npdoty]
18:09:01 [Chris_IAB]
what is "Cfo"?
18:09:02 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 6
18:09:02 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "AoB" taken up [from ninja]
18:09:09 [Chris_IAB]
call for objections?
18:09:10 [vincent]
18:09:14 [vincent]
18:09:20 [ninja]
Chris_IAB, yes
18:09:23 [moneill2]
matthias: anything else? otherwise adjorn
18:09:44 [Chris_IAB]
ok, thanks-- are we really saving a lot of time by making up new 3-letter acronyms? ;)
18:09:55 [moneill2]
nick: publish working draft on tuesday
18:10:06 [moneill2]
justin: publish both of them
18:10:30 [moneill2]
nick: tuesday
18:10:50 [Zakim]
18:10:52 [Zakim]
18:10:52 [Zakim]
18:10:54 [Zakim]
18:10:55 [Zakim]
18:10:55 [Zakim]
18:10:57 [justin]
Thanks all
18:10:57 [Zakim]
18:10:58 [Zakim]
18:10:58 [Zakim]
18:10:58 [Zakim]
18:10:59 [npdoty]
fine with me, I expect new Working Drafts of both documents, with status sections, to go out Tuesday, January 28
18:11:00 [Zakim]
18:11:00 [Zakim]
18:11:00 [Zakim]
18:11:01 [Zakim]
18:11:01 [Zakim]
18:11:02 [Zakim]
18:11:02 [Zakim]
18:11:03 [wseltzer]
18:11:06 [Zakim]
18:11:07 [Zakim]
18:11:08 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
18:11:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, Wendy, Ninja, Jack_Hobaugh, Jeff, moneill2, vincent, Ari, Carl_Cargill, kulick, +1.813.366.aaaa, Chris_IAB, GSHans, eberkower,
18:11:12 [Zakim]
... hwest, dwainberg, Fielding, MECallahan, sidstamm, walter, Chapell, justin, WileyS, hefferjr, SusanIsrael, hober, schunter, WaltMichel, Amy_Colando, LeeTien
18:11:12 [Zakim]
18:11:14 [Zakim]
18:11:17 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
18:11:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
18:11:21 [Zakim]
18:11:26 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
18:11:26 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items