IRC log of dnt on 2014-04-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:37:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:37:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:37:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:37:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:37:47 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 23 minutes
15:37:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:37:48 [trackbot]
Date: 09 April 2014
15:38:43 [ninja]
15:49:32 [ninja]
chair: Carl Cargill
15:51:45 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:51:58 [jeff]
jeff has joined #dnt
15:55:08 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:55:08 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has not yet started, npdoty
15:55:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jeff, npdoty, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, hober, walter, wseltzer, trackbot
15:55:21 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:55:28 [Zakim]
15:55:43 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:56:13 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
15:57:04 [Zakim]
15:57:24 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
15:57:25 [ninja]
zakim, call ninja-office
15:57:25 [Zakim]
ok, ninja; the call is being made
15:57:26 [Zakim]
15:57:32 [Zakim]
15:57:50 [Zakim]
15:58:35 [Carl]
Carl has joined #dnt
15:59:13 [ninja]
zakim, agenda?
15:59:13 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
15:59:14 [Zakim]
1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome! [from ninja]
15:59:14 [Zakim]
2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
15:59:14 [Zakim]
3. Suggested editorial changes to the TPE Editor's draft [from ninja]
15:59:14 [Zakim]
4. Announcement of two week call for consensus for TPE Last Call [from ninja]
15:59:14 [Zakim]
5. Publication of TCS Public Working Draft [from ninja]
15:59:15 [Zakim]
6. ISSUE-207: Conditions for dis-regarding (or not) DNT signals [from ninja]
15:59:15 [Zakim]
7. AoB [from ninja]
15:59:19 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
15:59:21 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:59:38 [Zakim]
15:59:39 [sidstamm]
hi all, I can't dial in today but will be watching irc
15:59:48 [dsinger]
zakim, [ipcaller] is me
15:59:48 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:49 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
15:59:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, Carl_Cargill, Ninja, Wendy, Fielding, dsinger
15:59:54 [ninja]
thanks, sidstamm!
16:00:03 [npdoty]
regrets+ sidstamm
16:00:10 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
16:00:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.312.340.aaaa
16:00:37 [Ari]
312.340 is Ari from Rocket Fuel
16:00:51 [ninja]
volunteers to scribe today?
16:01:02 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:01:03 [Zakim]
16:01:04 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:01:05 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
16:01:15 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
16:01:16 [wseltzer]
zakim, aaaa is Ari
16:01:16 [Zakim]
+Ari; got it
16:01:18 [Zakim]
16:01:21 [Zakim]
16:01:35 [eberkower]
Zakim, please mute me
16:01:35 [Zakim]
eberkower should now be muted
16:01:38 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:01:38 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
16:01:40 [Zakim]
16:01:49 [Zakim]
16:02:11 [Zakim]
16:02:13 [Zakim]
16:02:14 [Zakim]
16:02:22 [Zakim]
16:02:42 [moneill2]
zakim,[IPcaller] is me
16:02:42 [Zakim]
+moneill2; got it
16:02:58 [dsinger]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, Carl_Cargill, Ninja, Wendy, Fielding, dsinger, Ari, Jack_Hobaugh, Mike_Zaneis, eberkower (muted), dwainberg, WileyS, ??P15, Chris_Pedigo, kulick,
16:03:02 [Zakim]
... moneill2
16:03:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Mike_Zaneis, moneill2, kulick, WileyS, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, Ari, sidstamm, dsinger, Carl, fielding, eberkower, JackHobaugh, jeff, npdoty, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja,
16:03:02 [Zakim]
... hober, walter, wseltzer, trackbot
16:03:03 [Zakim]
16:03:15 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:03:19 [ninja]
zakim, please choose a scribe
16:03:20 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose dsinger
16:03:22 [matt]
matt has joined #dnt
16:03:30 [dsinger]
16:03:32 [Marc_]
Marc_ has joined #dnt
16:03:33 [Zakim]
16:03:40 [Zakim]
16:03:51 [ninja]
zakim, please choose a scribe
16:03:52 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Mike_Zaneis
16:03:54 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:03:54 [Zakim]
16:04:13 [wseltzer]
zakim, ??p20 is schunter
16:04:14 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:04:28 [Zakim]
16:04:45 [_3538]
_3538 has joined #dnt
16:04:55 [WileyS]
I'll scribe - I'll take bullet for the team
16:04:57 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:05:05 [npdoty]
scribenick: WileyS
16:05:13 [Zakim]
16:05:17 [npdoty]
chair: Carl
16:05:21 [ninja]
fzakim, who is here?
16:05:32 [ninja]
zakim, who is here?
16:05:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, Carl_Cargill, Ninja, Wendy, Fielding, dsinger, Ari, Jack_Hobaugh, Mike_Zaneis, eberkower (muted), dwainberg, WileyS, ??P15, Chris_Pedigo, kulick,
16:05:32 [dsinger]
zakim, who is here?
16:05:33 [WileyS]
Ninja: calls are now shorter - only 1 hour
16:05:36 [Zakim]
... moneill2, SusanIsrael, Jeff, MattHayes, schunter, Peder_Magee, vinay
16:05:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see vinay, _3538, kj, Marc_, matt, susanisrael, Mike_Zaneis, moneill2, kulick, WileyS, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, Ari, sidstamm, dsinger, Carl, fielding, eberkower,
16:05:36 [Zakim]
... JackHobaugh, jeff, npdoty, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, hober, walter, wseltzer, trackbot
16:05:36 [kulick]
16:05:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, Carl_Cargill, Ninja, Wendy, Fielding, dsinger, Ari, Jack_Hobaugh, Mike_Zaneis, eberkower (muted), dwainberg, WileyS, ??P15, Chris_Pedigo, kulick,
16:05:39 [Zakim]
... moneill2, SusanIsrael, Jeff, MattHayes, schunter, Peder_Magee, vinay
16:05:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see vinay, _3538, kj, Marc_, matt, susanisrael, Mike_Zaneis, moneill2, kulick, WileyS, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, Ari, sidstamm, dsinger, Carl, fielding, eberkower,
16:05:42 [Zakim]
... JackHobaugh, jeff, npdoty, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, hober, walter, wseltzer, trackbot
16:05:42 [Zakim]
16:05:51 [WileyS]
Carl: Are we ready to start. Simple agenda today. Assuming everyone has the agenda
16:05:54 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:05:59 [dsinger]
zakim, agenda?
16:05:59 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
16:06:00 [Zakim]
1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome! [from ninja]
16:06:00 [Zakim]
2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
16:06:00 [Zakim]
3. Suggested editorial changes to the TPE Editor's draft [from ninja]
16:06:00 [Zakim]
4. Announcement of two week call for consensus for TPE Last Call [from ninja]
16:06:01 [Zakim]
5. Publication of TCS Public Working Draft [from ninja]
16:06:01 [Zakim]
6. ISSUE-207: Conditions for dis-regarding (or not) DNT signals [from ninja]
16:06:01 [Zakim]
7. AoB [from ninja]
16:06:05 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 3
16:06:05 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Suggested editorial changes to the TPE Editor's draft" taken up [from ninja]
16:06:17 [Zakim]
16:06:22 [WileyS]
...suggest editorial changes to the draft, announcement of 2 weeks to Last Call
16:06:42 [JackHobaugh]
Could Roy step through the three changes he made this morning to the TPE?
16:06:46 [WileyS]
...quite a bit of discussion on the list on the Plug-In API issue
16:06:59 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:07:00 [npdoty]
16:07:18 [WileyS]
...any editorial changes that people feel are vitally necessary to make this a viable document.
16:07:29 [Zakim]
16:07:40 [WileyS]
Ninja: still an unidentified IP caller - please identify or we'll drop you. Nick, please...
16:07:42 [Chris_IAB]
I joined from a private #, but not an IP #
16:08:01 [WileyS]
Nick: Double checking - not referring to mine
16:08:02 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:08:18 [WileyS]
Roy: MIME types is the antiquated term - have been called Media types for 15 years now
16:08:19 [ninja]
Chris_IAB, that's probably you
16:08:24 [npdoty]
great, thanks.
16:08:34 [WileyS]
Carl, that takes care of that.
16:08:35 [ninja]
16:08:37 [JackHobaugh]
16:08:41 [npdoty]
"application/tracking-status+json" sounds good to me.
16:08:43 [npdoty]
16:08:48 [npdoty]
q+ Chris_IAB
16:08:53 [npdoty]
ack Chris_IAB
16:08:55 [dsinger]
Just to confirm the edit we discussed in email (Nick's issue)
16:09:21 [WileyS]
Chris M: Editorial speaking to have a working technical document - I don't believe we should have the definitions of Tracking and Context in the document.
16:09:24 [Zakim]
16:09:27 [dwainberg]
16:09:30 [Chris_IAB]
Editorially speaking, I do not think we need the definitions of tracking or context in the TPE
16:09:46 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:09:51 [WileyS]
Roy: Generally speaking, editorial changes dont alter decisions made by the working group. Issue-5 to be specific here
16:09:52 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:09:59 [Chris_IAB]
…in order to have a working TECHNICAL specification
16:10:03 [npdoty]
issue-5 and issue-240, I believe we're referring to
16:10:04 [WileyS]
Carl: So you are saying this is substantive change?
16:10:06 [WileyS]
Roy: Yes
16:10:18 [dsinger]
it would also take a very careful read to determine whether every instance of 'tracking' in the document was only using it in its normal english meaning
16:10:24 [npdoty]
ack ninja
16:10:28 [WileyS]
Roy: Unless there is new information offered we're not going to discuss it
16:10:40 [Chris_IAB]
that's right, they are COMPLIANCE related, not technical\
16:10:42 [Marc_]
I would guess that half of the people on this IRC agree with Chris, if not more.
16:10:44 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
16:10:52 [wseltzer]
16:10:54 [dsinger] would be editorial only if the term were unused, alas
16:10:57 [Chris_IAB]
it would be an editorial change for a TECHNICAL document
16:11:05 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:11:08 [npdoty]
16:11:09 [fielding]
and it is a closed issue, so this is not the time to discuss it. If it is still considered an objection, then a formal objection is called for at LC.
16:11:12 [WileyS]
Ninja: I know you're not happy with these compliance terms in the TPE
16:11:15 [Marc_]
By Committee, do you mean working group?
16:11:19 [WileyS]
Carl: So these won't be changed
16:11:29 [Chris_IAB]
how is it a substantive change?
16:11:45 [Zakim]
16:12:02 [WileyS]
Ninja: I wanted to bring up the UA Extensions discussion on the Mail List. I wanted to ask Roy for the outcome of these discussions. What text did he include.
16:12:12 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
16:12:28 [npdoty]
Marc_, Carl sometimes using "committee" as a generic term for working groups, I think
16:12:28 [npdoty]
User agents often include user-installable extensions, also known as add-ons or plug-ins, that are capable of modifying configurations and making network requests. From the user's perspective, these extensions are considered part of the user agent and ought to respect the user's configuration of a tracking preference. However, there is no single standard for extension interfaces. A user agent that supports extensions SHOULD also provide an appropriate mechanism for
16:12:29 [npdoty]
such extensions to determine the user's tracking preference.
16:12:29 [npdoty]
(the last sentence, in particular)
16:12:32 [WileyS]
I keep getting disconnected - someone else will need to take over as Scribe. Not sure what the issue is.
16:12:32 [dsinger]
(there are 283 occurrences of 'tracking' in the TPE!)
16:12:33 [fielding]
New text: A user agent that supports extensions SHOULD also provide an appropriate mechanism for such extensions to determine the user's tracking preference.
16:12:35 [WileyS]
16:12:46 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
16:12:59 [ninja]
ack ninja
16:13:02 [npdoty]
fielding: new text; MUST to SHOULD, makes sense, a social requirement rather than a protocol requirement
16:13:38 [WileyS]
Thank you Nick!!! So sorry - I was fully committed by my IRC client doesn't want to cooperate
16:13:43 [npdoty]
... instead of providing an API, "appropriate mechanism", variety of potential implementations
16:13:48 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
16:14:16 [npdoty]
... capacity for plugins to understand the UA-set preference for tracking, if they're not using the browser stack for making that request
16:14:29 [npdoty]
... seemed like that satisfied those who had previously commented
16:14:58 [npdoty]
npd_not_scribe: +1 on fielding's revised text
16:15:04 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:15:04 [npdoty]
ack JackHobaugh
16:15:11 [hober]
hober has joined #dnt
16:15:19 [dsinger]
I think we should open an issue on this question, so we don't lose track of it and think some more
16:15:26 [susanisrael]
* i think everyone owes npdoty a beer
16:15:26 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh: a lot of emails back and forth on this topic yesterday, obvious that there's not a consensus on the issue in the WG
16:15:30 [dsinger]
16:15:34 [dsinger]
16:15:39 [moneill2]
everybody was fine with SHOULD
16:15:40 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:15:42 [npdoty]
... needs more discussion in the group before we make these types of changes
16:15:45 [ninja]
JackHobaugh, I am sorry, but most of the discussion was not ON topic
16:15:57 [npdoty]
... need to open this up for discussion within the group
16:16:00 [Marc_]
This issue requires further discussion within the working group.
16:16:12 [ninja]
16:16:16 [dsinger]
Let's record it as a non-last-call Issue?
16:16:18 [npdoty]
fielding: lots of the conversation wasn't on topic; don't want to postpone because of irrelevant discussion
16:16:44 [npdoty]
... depends on the definition of user agent; I thought I was just rephrasing an existing requirement
16:17:04 [npdoty]
... david thought of UA as different, and so we found a better phrasing
16:17:05 [Marc_]
It seems that implementation for User Agents is critical, no?
16:17:18 [npdoty]
... only affects UA implementations
16:17:25 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh: can you explain the motivation?
16:17:31 [WileyS]
Roy, Know vs. Set - I think that's the confusion.
16:17:36 [npdoty]
fielding: we had a loosely phrased section before about plugins
16:17:53 [npdoty]
... had had several conversations before, we wanted some way to communicate to plugins, but plugin interfaces aren't standard
16:17:53 [dsinger]
I think it used to say "User agents often include user-installable component parts, commonly known as plug-ins or browser extensions, that are capable of making their own network requests. From the user's perspective, these components are considered part of the user agent and thus ought to respect the user's configuration of a tracking preference. However, plug-ins do not normally have read access to the browser configuration."
16:18:19 [Zakim]
16:18:20 [npdoty]
... so when I merged in that section, I added a simple requirement to add an API for that purpose, without specifying the API itself
16:18:22 [Zakim]
16:18:37 [dsinger]
so, "ought to" became "should" and "respect the user" became "some mechanism"...
16:19:02 [npdoty]
... restatement of what we already say, that you must set the DNT header field when the user enables it for the user agent, but can only send it when you know
16:19:23 [npdoty]
... any browser that has extensions wouldn't be able to comply with the protocol, which is an outcome we wouldn't want
16:19:55 [npdoty]
... alternative would be separately setting the DNT header for every plugin installed (perhaps even by default) in their browser, or losing the universal choice
16:20:12 [dsinger]
16:21:12 [WileyS]
16:21:19 [npdoty]
... need a way to spread that throughout the user agent; adding this to the section is a note to developers that they should think about that and an implementation should consider that if they want plugins to use it
16:21:49 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh: believe we need further discussion of the issue, not just the mailing list discussion, and go through the Call for Objections process
16:21:50 [dsinger]
q+ on the must/should
16:22:17 [npdoty]
fielding: if people disagree, should raise an objection; if people agree, don't need to
16:22:26 [npdoty]
... don't think an extra week will help us
16:22:41 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh: object to the must being changed to a should as an editorial change
16:23:04 [npdoty]
fielding: as editor, I'm not necessarily making purely editorial changes
16:23:24 [ninja]
16:23:29 [npdoty]
dwainberg: I thought we'd agreed as a group not to make any substantive changes, but have comments on other issue
16:24:07 [npdoty]
dsinger: should open an ISSUE, but don't need to block Last Call on it; could discuss it during Last Call
16:24:19 [Brooks]
Isn't the point not to discuss it in last call?
16:24:29 [npdoty]
... implementation experience from browsers/operating systems would be useful
16:24:32 [dsinger]
16:24:45 [dsinger]
issue in our issue database
16:24:54 [WileyS]
Disagree - that's the same as punting to v2
16:24:56 [Marc_]
Do we do call for objections first and then proceed to last call?
16:24:56 [npdoty]
Carl: as dsinger proposed, create an issue to address later. does anyone object to that?
16:25:04 [wseltzer]
q+ WileyS
16:25:14 [ninja]
q- support for dsinger's suggestion
16:25:17 [dsinger]
to WileyS, no, we can make changes as a result of feedback in last call, for example
16:25:20 [kulick]
Somewhat related to the discussion at hand, does anyone see the outcome from ISSUE-153 (option B from in the TPE ( ?
16:25:25 [ninja]
16:25:28 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
16:25:49 [fielding]
like I said, the MUST already existed (and still exists) since the user agent was already required to send DNT on all HTTP requests when DNT:1 or DNT:0 is enabled
16:26:00 [npdoty]
WileyS: dsinger, your suggestion would automatically punts this to version 2. won't work on any open issues for this during Last Call
16:26:15 [npdoty]
dsinger: we can choose to work on issues that we choose to
16:26:17 [Marc_]
No, Shane is correct. That is what was stated before. Let's be clear.
16:26:33 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:26:44 [npdoty]
WileyS: if we're not working on any open issues during Last Call, then I'd object to pushing it to v2
16:26:44 [rvaneijk]
I think going to last call with this open issue is a bad idea.
16:27:22 [WileyS]
I don't believe we can move to Last Call with this significant of an Open Issue
16:27:26 [Marc_]
I agree that going to last call with this open issue is a bad idea
16:27:40 [npdoty]
ninja: had said before that we wouldn't have open issues into Last Call; editors' draft we can work on, but Last Call Working Draft is stable for the two months of the public review period for Last Call
16:27:57 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
16:28:03 [npdoty]
wseltzer: goal is substantial agreement upon in order to release for public comment; no up front that it's not perfect
16:28:30 [npdoty]
... one word change doesn't seem blocking
16:28:31 [JackHobaugh]
Wendy, it was a “MUST” to a “SHOULD”
16:28:35 [dsinger]
we are clearly going to continue to realize things we ought to discuss 'at some point of our choosing'. We'll never bail the boat completely dry
16:28:38 [Zakim]
16:29:15 [npdoty]
wseltzer: an "ought to" to a "MUST" was noticed; then to a "SHOULD" scaling back a normative requirement; clarification of language that already existed
16:29:28 [npdoty]
fielding: basically, yes
16:29:47 [JackHobaugh]
Understood Wendy, but the “MUST” is what we reviewed last week as the document going to Last Call, correct?
16:29:49 [WileyS]
David, loved how you used "ought" in that statement :-)
16:30:05 [npdoty]
carl: achieved an understanding if not an agreement; change was a clarification
16:30:15 [Marc_]
so rephrasing a must to a should is not substantive, it's just a clarification? That makes no sense at all in the context of this document.
16:30:23 [Zakim]
16:30:23 [WileyS]
Carl - a formal objection has been raiseed. Are you able to close that defacto?
16:30:24 [npdoty]
... want to declare this closed for the moment, can continue with dsinger's proposal regarding issue
16:31:03 [WileyS]
Carl - Does this mean we're going to return to the "MUST" for now?
16:31:06 [npdoty]
... if further discussion is merited, we can have that. would like to move to other comments on the q
16:31:09 [wseltzer]
ack dwainberg
16:31:11 [wseltzer]
16:31:17 [ninja]
jeff, the LC document says SHIULD currently
16:31:31 [fielding]
WileyS, A formal objection can only be raised after we decide to go to LC without changing the text, and that FO would go to the Director for resolution.
16:31:39 [npdoty]
dwainberg: follow-up to Chris_IAB; shouldn't call this a "technical specification" because it's not a purely technical specification
16:32:27 [ninja]
dwainberg, we created the need to incorporate definitions, when the group decided to separate the two documents
16:32:46 [npdoty]
... charter describes a technical document and a compliance document that are separate; while I disagree with that, I think we should be careful when we discuss this in public to call it a "technical plus compliance document"
16:32:54 [Marc_]
At least 8 people on this IRC agree with David Wainberg's point.
16:33:08 [Ari]
16:33:15 [matt]
16:33:21 [WileyS]
Roy, thank you for the clarification.
16:33:31 [Chapell]
16:33:43 [npdoty]
carl: would take that under advisement; w3c works on technical specifications
16:33:57 [npdoty]
dwainberg: agree, but this isn't a technical specification
16:34:29 [npdoty]
fielding: documents (like HTTP) describe semantics, require definitions
16:34:52 [dsinger]
paras 3 and 4 of which section?
16:35:04 [npdoty]
dwainberg: my second point, as an editorial change suggest that we pare down the Introduction, specifically paragraphs 3 and 4
16:35:05 [Brooks]
16:35:15 [fielding]
section 1, para 3 and 4, to be replaced by what?
16:35:21 [kulick]
David, are you refering to these two paragraphs?
16:35:27 [npdoty]
carl: we will consider that proposal
16:35:28 [kulick]
It has become common for Web site owners to collect data regarding the usage of their sites for a variety of purposes, including what led the user to visit their site (referrals), how effective the user experience is within the site (web analytics), and the nature of who is using their site (audience segmentation). In some cases, the data collected is used to dynamically adapt the content...
16:35:30 [kulick]
...(personalization) or the advertising presented to the user (targeted advertising). Data collection often occurs through the insertion of tracking elements on each page. A survey of these techniques and their privacy implications can be found in [KnowPrivacy].
16:35:31 [kulick]
People have the right to know how data about them will be collected and how it will be used. Empowered with that knowledge, individuals can decide whether to allow their online activities to be tracked and data about them to be collected. Many Internet companies use data gathered about people's online activities to personalize content and target advertising based on their perceived interests. Whil
16:35:33 [kulick]
e some people appreciate this personalization of content and ads, others are troubled by what they perceive as an invasion of their privacy. For them, the benefit of personalization is not worth their concerns about allowing entities with whom they have no direct relationship to amass profiles about their activities.
16:35:40 [Zakim]
16:35:49 [Zakim]
16:35:58 [npdoty]
<some cross talk>
16:36:01 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
16:36:06 [dsinger]
can we be clear about what edit is being proposed, please?
16:36:09 [npdoty]
carl: would look for some documentation
16:36:33 [npdoty]
16:36:48 [kulick]
16:37:23 [Marc_]
what does that mean Wendy?
16:37:44 [npdoty]
wseltzer: as a process, continuing to ask for technical objections, but seem to hear challenges that aren't technical objections but don't like the content of the document
16:37:44 [WileyS]
Wendy - this is a technical specification - any objection to the text within the document is at its nature technical.
16:37:50 [Brooks]
technical only objects are fine in a techical only spec
16:37:55 [Brooks]
16:38:01 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB: how is that determined?
16:38:10 [npdoty]
wseltzer: that is the open question, to be put before the group
16:38:17 [npdoty]
16:38:25 [Marc_]
What is being put before the group? Please clarify that Wendy.
16:38:27 [WileyS]
16:38:39 [npdoty]
ack kulick
16:38:46 [JackHobaugh]
Wendy, how will a call for consensus to go to last call be put before the group?
16:39:02 [dsinger]
16:39:08 [npdoty]
q+ kulick
16:39:18 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
16:39:44 [npdoty]
WileyS: to wseltzer, we are talking about a technical specification and requirements in the technical specification
16:40:07 [npdoty]
... talking about plugin support; what should or shouldn't be in place
16:40:19 [jeff]
16:41:08 [npdoty]
... wseltzer, you and others interpret fixing things as delays; would rather have a good standard
16:41:27 [dsinger]
I think we have tried to make the TPE spec about the protocol and punt compliance to the compliance document. If we missed somewhere, let's get it pointed out.
16:41:30 [npdoty]
... especially for server-side implementers; it's not helpful if browsers do something and servers don't do anything in response
16:42:11 [npdoty]
carl: well put. all arguments have to be considered. i agree on being careful
16:42:22 [kulick]
16:42:33 [Ari]
thank you marissa
16:42:42 [dsinger]
16:42:42 [trackbot]
issue-153 -- What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? -- closed
16:42:42 [trackbot]
16:42:55 [npdoty]
WileyS: to follow up, regarding issue-153 was to address this; we're not finding the text
16:43:12 [jeff]
16:43:13 [kulick]
The outcome from ISSUE-153 (option B from does not appear to be presented in the TPE (
16:43:21 [npdoty]
... if we can clear that up, would ease the discussion
16:43:41 [kulick]
here is the text: "A user agent that permits an extension or plug-in to configure or inject a DNT header is jointly responsible, with the plug-in or extension, for ensuring compliance to the extent possible."
16:43:56 [npdoty]
< checking which editor was adding what >
16:44:05 [kulick]
this was after june
16:44:06 [WileyS]
I don't think the edit made it into the document
16:44:10 [kulick]
this was way more recent
16:44:24 [npdoty]
dsinger: comments from June, but has been edited
16:44:34 [fielding]
16:44:39 [npdoty]
fielding: yes, has been edited since then, incorporated into changes we discussed last week
16:45:08 [fielding]
A user agent extension MUST NOT alter the tracking preference expression or its associated configuration unless the act of installing and enabling that extension is an explicit choice by the user for that tracking preference, or the extension itself complies with all of the requirements this protocol places on a user agent.
16:45:33 [Zakim]
16:45:42 [JackHobaugh]
ISSUE 153 results are here:
16:45:51 [npdoty]
WileyS: had agreement from some browsers and us; responsibility to the extent possible ; but can't find that part of the text
16:46:31 [npdoty]
... have been looking through the editors' draft on the side
16:46:36 [npdoty]
fielding: 9th para of section 3
16:46:50 [kulick]
but this was option B of 153
16:46:52 [kulick]
"A user agent that permits an extension or plug-in to configure or inject a DNT header is jointly responsible, with the plug-in or extension, for ensuring compliance to the extent possible."
16:47:01 [npdoty]
WileyS: don't think that's the agreement from issue 153
16:47:24 [kulick]
it went to CFO and was decided
16:47:30 [npdoty]
fielding: reframed language to put requirements on particular actors, the user agent, in this sense
16:47:33 [Zakim]
16:47:44 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:48:21 [npdoty]
fielding: wasn't that part for the compliance spec?
16:48:35 [JackHobaugh]
ISSUE-153 went through the call for objections process and there was a result found.
16:48:39 [npdoty]
WileyS: it was a TPE discussion
16:48:59 [npdoty]
fielding: not sure where we would put it in the TPE, if it's about user agent compliance
16:49:04 [ninja]
JackHobaugh, this CfO addressed another subquestion
16:49:37 [npdoty]
WileyS: everyone agreed in v1 about as much as possible for the browser to be the source of the signal
16:50:15 [npdoty]
fielding: not sure June Draft text is relevant
16:50:20 [npdoty]
WileyS: but the concept is agreed upon
16:50:44 [kulick]
16:50:52 [npdoty]
16:51:00 [ninja]
16:51:00 [kulick]
around paragraph 7 or 8
16:51:10 [npdoty]
fielding: don't think it adds anything, but don't mind adding it if we know where
16:51:28 [npdoty]
dsinger: in section 3, among the plugins paragraphs
16:51:49 [npdoty]
16:51:51 [kulick]
16:52:00 [Chris_IAB]
Chairs, please consider, that with respect to Roy's rebuttal to David Wainberg's point that "we didn't do that in the HTTP spec", I would say, sure, THAT working group hadn't decided to specifically bifurcate their compliance from their tech spec, WE HAVE. Accordingly, David W. is right-- all that stuff belongs in a compliance spec, not in the TECH spec.
16:52:14 [npdoty]
dsinger: should doublecheck the history, but if we have agreement, then yes, we should add it
16:52:15 [kulick]
16:52:39 [Chris_IAB]
WileyS, isn't your point that we already decided this as a group?
16:52:48 [npdoty]
fielding: confusion is that the extension is part of the user agent already; not sure what jointly responsible would mean
16:53:00 [npdoty]
... I think it's covered already
16:53:16 [kulick]
respectfully Roy, why was this not brought up in the CFO then
16:53:21 [kulick]
this was a decided issue
16:54:03 [npdoty]
WileyS: extensions can add headers of their own; align settings about conflicting or double headers, that this was supposed to address
16:54:07 [Chris_IAB]
if this was already agreed to by the group, why are we having this debate now (on the substantive point of this issue)?
16:54:28 [npdoty]
... as opposed to rogue extensions doing something completely on their own, not coordinating the settings
16:54:47 [npdoty]
... not about compliance, just about turning on the signal and not sending mixed messages
16:54:57 [dsinger]
Roy is right on terminology; the UA is the entire bundle of software. we don't have a word for the 'base' other than 'browser', but we've been criticized for being 'browser specific' before
16:55:35 [npdoty]
fielding: if there's a requirement on the user agent, it's responsible to do so as a whole, however it's implemented or number of extensions
16:55:54 [ninja]
fielding, do you object the inclusion of this sentence?
16:56:13 [dsinger]
"If the user-agent can be assembled from parts (e.g. using a base and plug-ins or extensions), and the extensions can ...."
16:56:18 [wseltzer]
16:56:21 [npdoty]
... "an implementation that invokes external processes is responsible for that"
16:56:31 [wseltzer]
16:56:41 [npdoty]
WileyS: fine with using your alternate terms
16:56:50 [npdoty]
... agreement in the group, didn't even have to go to Call for Objections
16:57:16 [npdoty]
WileyS: fielding, if you can just find the right words for it, that would be great
16:57:26 [kulick]
why are we re-hashing something that was already decided
16:57:46 [kulick]
didn't we just say that was not appropriate on the last discussion we just had
16:57:58 [kulick]
why would that apply there, but not here?
16:58:17 [npdoty]
Wileys: we have user interface requirements, sometimes the business requirements are sufficient
16:58:37 [npdoty]
schunter: could we just rephrase to say "user agent and its extensions" in place of "user agent"
16:58:54 [Chris_IAB]
good point Shane: this is a slippery slope, and some folks want to draw the lines on compliance vs. tech one way, and others differently. I've been pointing this fundamental flaw out ever since we made the decision to bifurcate the docs.
16:59:09 [jeff]
[Sounds to me that there is a need for "non-normative text" that the user agent includes plug-ins, etc.]
16:59:18 [npdoty]
dsinger: "user agent" is the entire assembly, so we can get the same concept but with technically correct text
16:59:21 [npdoty]
16:59:23 [Zakim]
16:59:34 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, was this a closed issue, by the working group?
16:59:41 [fielding]
kulick, I don't recognize this as a decided issue -- there was merely agreement to include a non-normative statement, which was later edited by me to be something that makes sense.
17:00:11 [Zakim]
17:00:12 [npdoty]
... if you assemble your user agent from pieces, need to make responsibility for all the pieces
17:00:18 [Chris_IAB]
CHAIRS: are we discussing a closed issue, or was it left open?
17:00:19 [fielding]
… that doesn't mean I did it right
17:00:46 [npdoty]
npdnotscribe: Chris_IAB, yes issue-153 is closed, but we're discussing editorial changes to make sure we're using terms correctly
17:00:55 [Chris_IAB]
I'd like to see the text before we agree
17:01:01 [dsinger]
action: dsinger to work with Roy to find the right sentence for issue-153
17:01:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-447 - Work with roy to find the right sentence for issue-153 [on David Singer - due 2014-04-16].
17:01:09 [kulick]
17:01:28 [WileyS]
Thank you Ninja
17:01:29 [dsinger]
sure, Roy and I will circulate text as soon as we emerge (watch for smoke)
17:01:33 [npdoty]
dsinger: make we sure add that sentence, but with the right terminology
17:01:37 [kulick]
17:01:49 [dsinger]
17:01:49 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB: want to see the text before agreeing
17:02:21 [npdoty]
ninja: not asking for a Last Call decision today, about finishing the text and then ask to go to Last Call
17:02:24 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, why in some cases, are we told that we can't discuss closed issues, but in other cases, the Chairs and staff allow substantive debate on other closed issues?
17:02:35 [npdoty]
kulick: just want to make sure we don't lose track of this
17:02:44 [ninja]
17:02:47 [npdoty]
17:02:50 [npdoty]
ack kulick
17:03:10 [Zakim]
17:03:33 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, that was not an editorial discussion
17:03:33 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 4
17:03:33 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Announcement of two week call for consensus for TPE Last Call" taken up [from ninja]
17:03:38 [npdoty]
notscribe: Chris_IAB, kulick and WileyS raised it because they though the text didn't reflect the closed decision
17:03:42 [jeff]
Chris, I think we both discussed closed issues that the Chairs did not want to discuss, as well as closed issues that the Chairs wanted to discuss.
17:03:49 [WileyS]
Carl and Team - Today's call was only scheduled for 60 mins and that ended 3 minutes ago
17:04:11 [jeff]
Chris, in the latter case, there was a difference between the decision that was made and what is in the draft - which caused the need for more discussion.
17:04:28 [Chris_IAB]
jeff, we were shut down previously on my proposed editorial change, because it was noted that the issue was previously closed and decided on by the working group
17:04:40 [npdoty]
ninja: include these remarks from today; send out updated document as soon as possible, to ask you for group consensus to go to Last Call, ask by April 23
17:05:14 [Chris_IAB]
jeff, the process isn't being managed fairly-- that's plain to see
17:05:16 [jeff]
Chris, which one? Was that the one that the Chairs took under advisement?
17:05:31 [npdoty]
carl: objections again, are based on technical issues, make the document unimplementable, for example
17:05:36 [Chris_IAB]
jeff, no, the one I made at the outset of the call
17:05:37 [fielding]
I still don't understand why the two paragraphs in section 3 do not satisfy the actual issue (without using the original text), but I don't have an opinion on adding more editorial text about joint responsibility (even though responsibility is a legal issue, not a technical one).
17:05:52 [Chris_IAB]
we were not allowed to discuss it further, per Carl
17:06:03 [npdoty]
... issues we're discussing aren't closed ones, but questions that prevent implementation
17:06:03 [jeff]
Chris, sorry. I forgot which one. Could you remind me - either here or in a separate channel?
17:06:21 [fielding]
17:06:24 [npdoty]
... consensus is not unanimity or economic factors (with legal implications) but questions for implementation/adoption
17:06:30 [npdoty]
ack fielding
17:06:56 [npdoty]
fielding: previous agenda item: one editorial change, to move 2.3 into introduction, existing introduction into a subsection
17:07:08 [npdoty]
... doesn't change any text, just moves things around in the document
17:07:24 [npdoty]
... so that the terms are available in the introduction, rather than a later section; want the terms up front
17:07:35 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, sure, I asked for the editorial change to remove the definitions of tracking and context (and move them to a compliance document)-- this is not a substantive change, for a TECHNICAL document, which is supposed to be accompanied in practice, by a compliance document
17:07:48 [npdoty]
carl: any comments or objections?
17:08:22 [npdoty]
dsinger: seems atypical for formal terminology to be before the explanation of the document, but if the terms are used
17:08:24 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, there is no technical/procedural requirement in a tech spec for these definitions
17:08:34 [ninja]
Chris_IAB, we discussed this decision extensively: It is necessary to define the scope and meaning of the signal sent by the user
17:08:47 [npdoty]
fielding: section 2 is notational conventions, which usually doesn't have important terms
17:08:50 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, if you removed them, folks could still follow the implementation guidelines without them
17:08:53 [jeff]
Chris, I looked back at the IRC notes. It does not seem to me that there was no discussion. It seems that there was a discussion, and it was pointed out that this input from you contradicted a previous WG decision. Am I mis-reading it?
17:09:14 [Chris_IAB]
ninja, I completely disagree that is is technically "necessary"
17:09:22 [dsinger]
zakim, agenda?
17:09:22 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
17:09:23 [Zakim]
1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome! [from ninja]
17:09:23 [Zakim]
2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
17:09:23 [Zakim]
3. Suggested editorial changes to the TPE Editor's draft [from ninja]
17:09:23 [Zakim]
4. Announcement of two week call for consensus for TPE Last Call [from ninja]
17:09:23 [Zakim]
5. Publication of TCS Public Working Draft [from ninja]
17:09:23 [npdoty]
< listing of numbering of the sections >
17:09:24 [Zakim]
6. ISSUE-207: Conditions for dis-regarding (or not) DNT signals [from ninja]
17:09:24 [Zakim]
7. AoB [from ninja]
17:09:24 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 5
17:09:26 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Publication of TCS Public Working Draft" taken up [from ninja]
17:09:37 [npdoty]
carl: we are over time
17:09:47 [npdoty]
ninja: can we point to agendum 5 briefly
17:10:08 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, that's because IRC was acting up
17:10:10 [WileyS]
The TCS was a mess when we last left it. Are we going with the June Draft or the original Editors Draft of the TCS?
17:10:13 [ninja]
17:10:15 [Chris_IAB]
so I made my request verbally
17:10:21 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
17:10:24 [Chris_IAB]
it should have been scribed
17:10:34 [Chris_IAB]
in any case, my point is certainly in the record now
17:10:37 [npdoty]
carl: TPE would be Last Call WD; TCS would be a working draft to start with
17:10:45 [WileyS]
I prefer the Editors Draft - but others may want the June Draft. How are we going to make a decision?
17:10:59 [WileyS]
The definitions can go into either one
17:11:09 [npdoty]
ninja: the document has been a mess, but chairs asked Nick to make updates based on group decisions
17:11:11 [WileyS]
Fair - but we still need to decide which one to put forward
17:11:17 [npdoty]
17:11:19 [WileyS]
It doesn't answer my question
17:11:23 [wseltzer]
17:11:29 [npdoty]
ack ninja
17:11:29 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:11:51 [npdoty]
WileyS: agree to put new definitions, even if I don't agree with all the definitions
17:11:58 [wseltzer]
"Latest editor's draft:
17:12:00 [wseltzer]"
17:12:23 [npdoty]
... doesn't answer the basic question of, if we push a new Working Draft, are we going to go with the June draft or the latest editors' draft?
17:12:45 [npdoty]
ack wseltzer
17:12:55 [npdoty]
... need to make a decision if publishing again
17:13:07 [ninja]
Decision on what base text to use:
17:13:14 [fielding]
I believe the decision was made for us to be the one published as a WD. ;-)
17:13:31 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, "It seems that there was a discussion, and it was pointed out that this input from you contradicted a previous WG decision." -- yes, that's how it went down, but when the same thing happened later, but it was Roy arguing the point, the Chairs let the substantive conversation go… THAT'S what I'm pointing out. Seems biased to me.
17:13:38 [npdoty]
wseltzer: think we already made that decision, editors' draft, where nick has made updates
17:14:03 [npdoty]
WileyS: doesn't represent the WG's position, but w3c staff and co-chairs of the time position
17:14:35 [npdoty]
... at the time, closed many of the issues we had opened, and then created new issues, did that all on their own, without the WG's participation
17:14:40 [jeff]
Chris, the reason it went on in the later case was because the current text in the draft disagreed with the WG decision. We were not debating the WG decision. We were trying to find the language to implement that decision in the draft.
17:14:52 [npdoty]
... why we had an uprising, a messy starting point
17:14:59 [npdoty]
17:15:33 [npdoty]
carl: with metaphors, wasn't good, and we should make it less bad
17:15:35 [npdoty]
17:15:47 [rvaneijk]
I object to the text in par 5.3.5 "Expecting further text on audience measurement. "
17:15:51 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, that's exactly what Roy was arguing… he said things like, "it doesn't make sense to me", etc. He was arguing against the POINT that had been closed. Same same, but different treatment my friend.
17:15:57 [wseltzer]
Are there issues in the split can't be addressed in open issues against the current Editors' draft
17:16:02 [npdoty]
WileyS: continental divide
17:16:05 [wseltzer]
17:16:06 [rvaneijk]
17:16:11 [ninja]
17:16:21 [npdoty]
carl: need a lot of work to get it in shape
17:16:29 [Chris_IAB]
Carl, wseltzer, completely agree with Swiley on his current point
17:16:37 [jeff]
Chris, I agree - but the difference is that the editor controls the pen, so we needed to help him find words he could pen. That's what took longer.
17:16:50 [npdoty]
WileyS: they sort of developed this consensus on their own
17:16:51 [npdoty]
17:17:10 [fielding]
Chris_IAB, the intent of the current draft is to encompass whatver decision was made, but that doesn't mean I understood that decision and the text that was proposed to close it. As editorial NON-NORMATIVE text, it is subject to my redrafting as editor based on my knowledge of the rest of the document. Again, that doesn't mean I redrafted it correctly.
17:17:15 [Chris_IAB]
jeff, I respectfully disagree with your assessment
17:17:21 [rvaneijk]
17:17:36 [npdoty]
carl: start with draft wendy linked to, need to talk with co-chairs
17:17:39 [npdoty]
17:17:45 [jeff]
Chris, I respectfully accept your disagreement and likewise :)
17:18:03 [npdoty]
... discuss with the chairs if there is a mitigation
17:18:08 [wseltzer]
17:18:11 [npdoty]
< more metaphors >
17:18:17 [Chris_IAB]
fielding, my point is that we didn't get to discuss other proposed changes in the same way you discussed this one. It's about fair play in consensus building.
17:18:24 [eberkower]
Well done, Shane
17:18:36 [Zakim]
17:18:45 [wseltzer]
ack npdoty
17:19:24 [WileyS]
June Draft + Changes
17:19:45 [wseltzer]
17:19:50 [fielding]
Chris_IAB, you know full well that the definition of tracking is not editiorial and that the decision on ISSUE-5 specifically directs me to include it in TPE, so your suggestions otherwise are false,.
17:20:10 [ninja]
17:20:12 [Chris_IAB]
Official editorial request before moving to last call: please remove the definitions of "tracking" and "context" from the TPE.
17:20:17 [rvaneijk]
Nick, the discussion on audience measurements is too far from consensus to assume that "Expecting further text on audience measurement.
17:20:37 [Chris_IAB]
fielding, I no of no such thing, other than we disagree on it.
17:20:37 [WileyS]
+1 to Rob
17:20:48 [jeff]
s/no of no/know of no/
17:21:15 [npdoty]
npdoty: < tried to explain current status, previous working draft publications, editorial changes; group consensus comes from working through issues and change proposals >
17:21:26 [dsinger]
17:21:32 [Chris_IAB]
fielding, I also point out that the subsequent decision to include these definitions was in direct conflict with the earlier group decision to bifurcate the documents.
17:21:41 [Zakim]
17:21:42 [Zakim]
17:21:44 [Zakim]
17:21:52 [WileyS]
Have a great weekend everyone...
17:21:52 [Zakim]
17:21:54 [Zakim]
17:21:55 [npdoty]
carl: close the call for today. fielding and dsinger to finish edits. ask for consensus on TPE Last Call.
17:21:56 [Zakim]
17:21:58 [vincent]
thanks npdoty
17:21:58 [Zakim]
17:21:58 [npdoty]
17:21:59 [Zakim]
17:21:59 [Zakim]
17:22:00 [Zakim]
17:22:00 [Zakim]
17:22:02 [Zakim]
17:22:02 [Zakim]
17:22:02 [Zakim]
17:22:03 [Zakim]
17:22:04 [Zakim]
17:22:06 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:22:06 [Zakim]
17:22:06 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, Carl_Cargill, Ninja, Wendy, Fielding, dsinger, +1.312.340.aaaa, Jack_Hobaugh, Ari, Mike_Zaneis, eberkower, dwainberg, WileyS,
17:22:06 [Zakim]
... Chris_Pedigo, kulick, moneill2, SusanIsrael, Jeff, MattHayes, schunter, Peder_Magee, vinay, hefferjr, robsherman, Brooks, Chris_IAB, Chapell, [FTC], rvaneijk, vincent,
17:22:06 [Zakim]
... [Microsoft]
17:22:13 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:22:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:22:22 [Zakim]
17:22:53 [Zakim]
17:22:55 [Zakim]
17:24:33 [Zakim]
18:30:50 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
18:38:15 [jeff_]
jeff_ has joined #dnt