15:50:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:50:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-dnt-irc
15:50:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:50:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:50:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:50:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:50:49 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:50:49 <trackbot> Date: 03 August 2016
15:50:51 <wseltzer> Chair: Matthias
15:51:23 <wseltzer> wseltzer has changed the topic to: TPWG call 3 August
15:54:32 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:57:28 <wseltzer> present+ wseltzer
15:58:29 <wseltzer> present+ matthias, Rob
15:58:37 <wseltzer> present+ moneill2, npdoty
16:00:15 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
16:00:41 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:01:05 <jeff> present+ jeff
16:01:41 <wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
16:01:52 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
16:01:52 <Zakim> Present: wseltzer, matthias, Rob, moneill2, npdoty, jeff
16:01:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see dsinger, jeff, npdoty, Zakim, RRSAgent, rvaneijk, moneill2, walter, adrianba, wseltzer, trackbot
16:02:05 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:02:11 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
16:02:23 <wseltzer> present+ ChrisPedigo
16:02:29 <weiler> weiler has joined #dnt
16:02:31 <wseltzer> ChrisPedigo: We're now Digital Content Next
16:02:44 <weiler> present+
16:02:46 <schunter> User 2 is Rob
16:02:57 <wseltzer> zakim, who is on the phone
16:02:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', wseltzer
16:03:00 <wseltzer> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:00 <Zakim> Present: wseltzer, matthias, Rob, moneill2, npdoty, jeff, dsinger, ChrisPedigo, weiler
16:03:59 <wseltzer> present+ Fielding
16:04:33 <wseltzer> present+ Vincent
16:04:37 <wseltzer> present+ WileyS
16:04:50 <wseltzer> Topic: Introduction
16:04:56 <wseltzer> schunter: Welcome back
16:05:03 <wseltzer> ... Good you all still exist
16:05:25 <wseltzer> ... we pushed both specs out, and then nothing happened
16:05:44 <wseltzer> ... about a month back, Wendy asked "should we recharter?"
16:05:54 <wseltzer> ... a bit of discussion on the list
16:06:13 <wseltzer> ... Many browsers have implemented the header
16:06:29 <wseltzer> ... my sense is that the compliance spec is not widely used
16:06:36 <wseltzer> ... So, we could leave the specs in CR
16:06:47 <wseltzer> ... until something happens and then reopen
16:07:00 <wseltzer> ... Or, we could make the last push over the line now
16:07:09 <wseltzer> ... I'd like to hear pros and cons in discussion
16:07:11 <dsinger> q+
16:07:15 <wseltzer> ... The lazy option is to do nothing
16:07:24 <moneill2> q+
16:07:26 <wseltzer> ... Question 1: are there signs of implementation and use?
16:07:31 <wseltzer> ... data-gathering
16:07:35 <wseltzer> ack dsinger
16:07:36 <schunter> q+
16:07:44 <schunter> q-
16:07:48 <wseltzer> dsinger: other questions: if we discontinue and we get bug reports, what happens
16:08:00 <wseltzer> ... if we get implementations, how do we move forward?
16:08:03 <npdoty> q+
16:08:10 <wseltzer> ... and if there's group that does nothing, what's the impact?
16:08:10 <wileys> wileys has joined #DNT
16:08:20 <wseltzer> schunter: if the group doesn't exist, there may be a forum for bug reports
16:08:27 <Vincent> Vincent has joined #dnt
16:08:29 <wseltzer> ... if a group does nothing, that's not much use
16:08:31 <dsinger> we should surely have a documented way to file bug reports
16:08:43 <wseltzer> q+
16:09:05 <wseltzer> dsinger: we should make sure there's a place for bug reports even if we dn't re-charter
16:09:17 <schunter> Decision: if we discontinue the group, then there should be a well-defined way to report and archive bug reports.
16:09:19 <wileys> Agreed - close out existing work but do not extend charter until we have enough implementation experience to move forward on a v1.1
16:09:42 <wseltzer> present+ walter, CraigSpiezle
16:09:44 <wseltzer> q?
16:10:02 <npdoty> I would suggest in any case we should keep the mailing list not only for bugs but also for gathering implementation reports
16:10:04 <wseltzer> ack mon
16:10:04 <schunter> q-
16:10:19 <wseltzer> moneill2: there are people doing server-side implementation
16:10:30 <wseltzer> ... big client problem is lack of implemented JS API
16:10:37 <wseltzer> ... it's in IE, Edge has a bug
16:10:41 <wseltzer> ... not sure it's anywhere else
16:10:51 <walter> q+
16:11:00 <wseltzer> ... at the moment, TCS refers to exceptions mechanism of JS API
16:11:02 <wileys> What is the percentage of web servers that have implemented DNT v1 at this point?  A handful out of millions? 0.000001%?
16:11:17 <wseltzer> ... if it's not there, it's a problem
16:11:18 <dsinger> (thinks it would be really useful to hear of sites that need the exception API to function)
16:11:23 <wseltzer> ... Also, EFF has a version of the policy
16:11:37 <wseltzer> ... I'm being apporached by people who want to implement DNT using EFF compliance
16:11:55 <wseltzer> ... I'm saying they should use W3C's and use compliance proeprty to point to
16:12:14 <wseltzer> ... Medium.com has a pretty good technical implementation as a publishing platform
16:12:20 <wseltzer> ... uses out-of-band consent
16:12:22 <schunter> EFF could migrate to the TCS way to publish their policy server side (currently they use their own well-known URL)
16:12:32 <wileys> Medium only uses OOBC - so they’ve only implemented the very basic elements of the standard
16:13:04 <wseltzer> ... bits of pieces from implementation, bugs or minor changes to features
16:13:20 <wseltzer> ... implementation experience
16:13:59 <wseltzer> ... Same-party array, you need to specify each subdomain. Why not just say .domain?
16:14:03 <wileys> We had suggested a wildcard initially - not sure how that was lost.
16:14:07 <wseltzer> schunter: we can keep those queued
16:14:24 <wseltzer> ... formally question for W3C -- we need a bunch of implementations
16:14:28 <wseltzer> s/formally/formal/
16:14:32 <wseltzer> ... we don't need percentage
16:14:37 <wileys> 1 or 2 is good enough?  I thought we needed more???
16:15:02 <jeff> Wendy: Exit criteria are interoperably implemented by multiple (usually 2 or more) independent implementations
16:15:08 <jeff> ... does not refer to percentages
16:15:25 <jeff> ... but we can ask: "is it useful based on scale of implementation and adoption?"
16:15:28 <npdoty> I think most of our goal is to have larger implementation than 2 :) but we can show interoperability through that
16:15:42 <wseltzer> schunter: IE does the most client side
16:15:49 <wseltzer> ... one or two server-side implementations
16:15:51 <wileys> Client-side implementations are only the basic level at this time
16:16:04 <wseltzer> ... is anyone aware of other uses of compliance?
16:16:33 <wseltzer> ChrisPedigo: Re EFF, an ad network is working with EFF in some way; could be interesting to figure out how
16:16:53 <wseltzer> schunter: EFF has a proprietary implementation of TCS
16:17:18 <dsinger> (notes that the Charter http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter doesn’t mention exit critera as far as I can see…)
16:17:23 <wseltzer>  ... technically, they don't like our policy, but should be able to use our tech
16:17:37 <wileys> Yahoo’s implementation is compliant (mostly?) with the W3C TCS but we’ve not fully implemented the TPE (similar to clients)
16:17:39 <schunter> q?
16:17:39 <dsinger> (but Process 2015 documents Implementation experience requirements http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#implementation-experience)
16:17:39 <wseltzer> moneill2: they don't like our permitted uses
16:17:42 <schunter> ack
16:17:44 <wseltzer> ack npdoty
16:17:44 <npdoty> dsinger, I think we're referring to the exit criteria for Candidate Recommendations in general
16:18:04 <wseltzer> npdoty: I'm meeting with Medium today
16:18:23 <wseltzer> ... they have an interesting server-side implementation
16:18:41 <wseltzer> ... we're in the "call for implementation" phase
16:18:55 <wseltzer> ... if we wanted to go further, we could write an implementation guide
16:19:28 <schunter> q?
16:19:31 <schunter> ack w
16:19:38 <schunter> q+ walter
16:19:38 <npdoty> implementation guide, or user documentation
16:19:42 <schunter> ack
16:19:43 <jeff> Wendy: Follow-up on question of bug reports
16:19:55 <jeff> ... Propose that mailing list and wiki continue to serve
16:20:02 <jeff> ... and implementation discussion
16:20:14 <jeff> ... other aegis of Privacy Interest Group
16:20:20 <jeff> ... If we stop TPWG
16:20:26 <jeff> ... On "implementation"
16:20:35 <jeff> ... each feature needs interoperable implementations
16:20:49 <jeff> ... we need to go back to TPE feature by feature
16:20:55 <schunter> ack
16:20:56 <moneill2> q+
16:20:58 <wseltzer> ack walt
16:20:59 <wseltzer> q-
16:20:59 <jeff> ... remove things that did not have implementation.
16:21:10 <dsinger> (typically multiple at each end, i.e. multiple clients and multiple servers…)
16:21:16 <wseltzer> walter: re implementations, Twitter
16:21:25 <wseltzer> ... a sizeable service
16:21:39 <npdoty> yeah, it would be nice to know the details of Twitter's implementation experience as well
16:21:43 <wseltzer> ... 2 questions: would it be doable for W3C to re-charter limted to technical spec?
16:21:55 <wseltzer> ... I think it's achievable for TPE
16:22:07 <wseltzer> ... How do people feel about the effort required?
16:22:27 <wseltzer> schunter: to push this discussion further, other comments?
16:22:27 <wseltzer> q?
16:22:55 <schunter> ack mo
16:23:01 <wseltzer> ... finish the implementation discussion, then ask, should we continue TPE, Compliance? recharter?
16:23:01 <wileys> chicken/egg issue on server-side implementations since no client supports the full set of features in the TPE
16:23:14 <wseltzer> moneill2: because we don't have JS API, we have problem with caching
16:23:27 <npdoty> could we take that detail to the list?
16:23:32 <schunter> Matthias: there will be some effort required time to maintain and improve
16:24:00 <wseltzer> schunter: if we continue, there's substantial time, not just push the buttons
16:24:05 <dsinger> q?
16:24:11 <dsinger> q+
16:24:38 <npdoty> q+
16:24:42 <schunter> q?
16:24:42 <wileys> Agreed - don’t believe the TCS is needed at this time
16:24:55 <wseltzer> schunter: re Compliance spec, I don't see anyone implementing, don't think we need it
16:25:17 <wseltzer> dsinger: I don't want to charter a group that doesn't meet; also don't want W3C to shut the door on potential future work
16:25:25 <wileys> David - couldn’t we recharter if interest increases proportionally to the effort to continue?
16:25:33 <wileys> +q
16:25:35 <wseltzer> ... it's possible that in the future someone will find them useful because, say, a regulator points to them
16:25:46 <wseltzer> ... don't want to give false impression that they're being worked on
16:26:07 <wseltzer> schunter: My answer, I was ignoring the group for a while; that's not what I'd propose going forward if we reacharter
16:26:12 <jeff> q+ to address David's question
16:26:17 <wseltzer> ... it's a group decision to commit time, if we recharter
16:26:17 <jeff> ack ds
16:26:41 <dsinger> If we can re-charter if interest picks up, then I’m fine with that, and with that as a message; the specs are in CR, we ask for implementations, and if interest picks and and/or bugs are reported, we’ll re-charter to handle that
16:26:48 <Vincent> q+
16:26:53 <wseltzer> ... re potential that someone might eventually like it, that's not enough to push to Rec
16:26:56 <wseltzer> q+
16:26:59 <walter> q+
16:27:11 <wseltzer> ... if we want to get TCS over the line, we need to to find real implementers
16:27:43 <wseltzer> q?
16:27:48 <schunter> ack np
16:27:49 <wseltzer> ack np
16:28:10 <wseltzer> npdoty: I had some similar feelings to David; I don't want us to put effort into just waiting
16:28:33 <wseltzer> ... on the other hand, if we get bug reports, do we need a rechartering then to fix the bug?
16:28:45 <wseltzer> ... server-side implementation is more interesting question, and I don't think we've seen a lot
16:29:01 <wseltzer> ... if we're saying TCS isn't being used, should we point them to EFF's doc?
16:29:25 <wseltzer> ack wileys
16:29:37 <schunter> Question: If we do not to the compliance spec, we should say what people can point to.
16:29:51 <wseltzer> wileys: I don't think W3C can support EFF's TCS, since the WG didn't support that
16:30:13 <schunter> Shane: We should not; Servers can point to policy document they prefer (since W3C has nothing standardized)
16:30:17 <wseltzer> ... is it possible to pause without saying the standard isn't going forward
16:30:34 <wseltzer> ... we're taking time to learn more what's needed
16:30:43 <moneill2> q+
16:30:52 <wseltzer> ... once we know what's needed, it's not hard to recharter
16:31:08 <schunter> Wiley: Does not support continuing the TCS. Would be OK to continue TPE
16:31:18 <wseltzer> ... wait to see what external pressures emerge
16:31:23 <npdoty> I'm not suggesting we formally endorse any alternative compliance, I'm just saying, if we aren't going to continue with W3C Tracking Compliance, aren't we suggesting people go elsewhere for compliance policies?
16:31:28 <wseltzer> ack next
16:31:29 <schunter> ack jef
16:31:30 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address David's question
16:32:02 <wseltzer> jeff: to David's question, if there's something we want to do now, that could be a reason to recharter
16:32:24 <wseltzer> ... but not keep it in charter just in case we need it
16:32:55 <wseltzer> ... PING can host discussion in the interim, and then re-charter if we find reason
16:33:04 <wseltzer> ... I also agree with what Shane said about EFF
16:33:21 <Vincent> Many websites wait for a standard industry to start implementing: https://www.google.fr/?client=firefox-b#q=There+is+currently+no+industry+standard+for+how+companies+should+respond+to+%22do+not+track%22+&gfe_rd=cr
16:33:26 <wseltzer> ... 's recommendation. A WG could, after discussion, endorse another group's work
16:33:33 <wseltzer> ... but this isn't a WG right now
16:33:48 <wseltzer> schunter: if we were to finish TCS, it would probably take half a year
16:33:50 <wseltzer> ... recharter
16:34:00 <dsinger> q?
16:34:02 <npdoty> again, I'm not suggesting a formal endorsement jeff, I'm just pointing out that if we don't want to continue with it, we should expect people to look at the only existing alternatives
16:34:04 <wseltzer> jeff: in principle, we can write what we want into a charter
16:34:23 <dsinger> q+ to ask what Matthias means by “finish TCS”?
16:34:31 <wseltzer> schunter: if we recharter with TCS, technically, we can point to EFF's proposal
16:35:05 <wseltzer> jeff: look to normative reference guidelines re what a chartered group could say
16:36:04 <wseltzer> q- later
16:36:12 <schunter> ack Vin
16:36:13 <wseltzer> ack Vincent
16:36:36 <wseltzer> Vincent: If we don't complete the standards, we're unlikely to see implementation
16:36:48 <wseltzer> ... no incentive; they use the excuse that htere's currently no industry standard
16:37:05 <schunter> Finishing TPE would encourage further implementation (while not continuing may further reduce adoption)
16:37:06 <wseltzer> ... e.g. search for "there is currently no industry standard" and you'll find it in many companies' privacy policies
16:37:18 <wseltzer> ... if we write the standard, they have to make a decision
16:37:38 <schunter> ack
16:37:40 <wseltzer> ... California law says htey have to say whether they respond to DNT
16:37:42 <wseltzer> ack walter
16:37:53 <wseltzer> walter: agree with Shane
16:38:03 <jeff> [For Matthias, and anyone else interested - our normative references policy -->   https://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references.html]
16:38:28 <wseltzer> ... I think we should move TPE forward; not TCS
16:39:23 <wseltzer> ... GDPR suggests 2-year time-frame for take-up of TPE
16:39:27 <dsinger> q?
16:40:13 <wseltzer> walter: I was thinking refer to EFF as example
16:40:19 <wseltzer> ack moneill2
16:40:20 <schunter> ack mone
16:40:30 <walter> wseltzer: yeah, that would be good
16:40:48 <wseltzer> moneill2: there's already activity on TPE
16:40:51 <wseltzer> present+ aleecia
16:40:54 <wseltzer> q+ aleecia
16:41:25 <wseltzer> ... there can be other compliance documents
16:41:46 <wseltzer> ... proceed with TPE
16:41:54 <wseltzer> ... as dsinger said, turn JS into async
16:42:12 <wseltzer> ... Privacy directive review may point to DNT
16:42:20 <wseltzer> ... some comments saying it should be obligatory
16:42:39 <wseltzer> zakim, close queue
16:42:39 <Zakim> ok, wseltzer, the speaker queue is closed
16:43:04 <wseltzer> dsinger: you talked about finishing compliance spec; it's in CR, I'm not aware of anything we should be doing to it
16:43:15 <wseltzer> ... we should say we're waiting for implementation, implementation report
16:43:22 <npdoty> +1 dsinger, we are waiting on implementation experience
16:43:23 <wseltzer> ... if that arrives, we'll consider taking it to Rec
16:43:38 <wseltzer> ... re TPE, there is work to do
16:43:43 <walter> dsinger: The thing is, people won't submit bug reports, there'll just be competing compliance specs
16:43:48 <wseltzer> ... motivation may be low until someone asks for it
16:43:50 <wseltzer> ack dsinger
16:43:50 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask what Matthias means by “finish TCS”?
16:43:50 <moneill2> i am up for it
16:43:58 <npdoty> ack wseltzer
16:44:18 <jeff> Wendy: Hearing more support for TPE than TCS
16:44:27 <jeff> ... original charter said to move to CR in sync
16:44:44 <jeff> ... in a new charter we could ask membership about a single document
16:44:52 <jeff> ... but, what are we telling users if we say
16:45:14 <jeff> ... "here is a header, we are not aware that servers pay attention to it, go implement anyways"
16:45:28 <wseltzer> ack aleecia
16:45:29 <jeff> ... do we have a compliance story (at all) that motivates continued work on TPE
16:45:35 <jeff> ... ?
16:45:44 <wseltzer> aleecia: I've been studying DNT academically
16:45:51 <schunter> Proposed Consensus on TCS: 1.  Leave TCS in CR for now (if we later receive substantial implementation, we may pick up again); no rechartering if this is our only activitiy
16:45:51 <wseltzer> ... mild uptick on adoption ion 2016
16:46:00 <wseltzer> ... visibility from California's law
16:46:10 <wseltzer> ... most saying "DNT is unfinished, so we can't implement"
16:46:21 <wseltzer> ... there's a perception that we're not finished
16:46:34 <wseltzer> ... could be valuable for W3C to do press calling for implementations
16:46:45 <wseltzer> ... help in understanding what phase we're in
16:46:56 <npdoty> we can and should point out to people that we are at a stage where DNT Compliance can be implemented (in contrast to some privacy policy statements)
16:46:57 <wseltzer> ... also +1 to npdoty's implementation guide suggestion
16:47:02 <schunter> ============= Discussion on TPE to start =========
16:47:07 <wseltzer> ... ots of implementors aren't standards people, don't understand
16:47:26 <wseltzer> ... so I'd propose do a bit more with TPE to focus on how to go forward without browser implementatoin
16:47:39 <wseltzer> ... bootstrap problem
16:47:41 <moneill2> q+
16:48:07 <wseltzer> ... concern that without some type of compliance doc, TPE is rudderless
16:48:22 <wseltzer> ... we'd need to pull TCS refs from TPE and say what to do in its place
16:48:31 <wseltzer> ... agree not to endorse EFF version of TCS
16:48:47 <wseltzer> ... despite EFF having open process, don't think their result would win our group's consensus
16:48:54 <schunter> Aleecia: Simplified support for TPE by non-browser tools (to allow adoption if browsers do not fully support TPE)
16:49:07 <wseltzer> ... if there's no W3C DNT Compliance, then EFF becomes Do Not Track, lots of regulatory interest
16:49:35 <wseltzer> ... support going forward
16:49:54 <wseltzer> schunter: Consensus I hear on Compliance, it's in CR, people can implement, no one is eager to move forward on it
16:50:03 <wseltzer> ... leave it in CR unless we receive reports.
16:50:26 <wseltzer> ... Re TPE, choice between doing nothing, push for implementations, debug, try to finish
16:50:36 <wseltzer> ... I think we're 95% there
16:50:43 <wseltzer> zakim, reopen queue
16:50:43 <Zakim> ok, wseltzer, the speaker queue is open
16:50:50 <npdoty> do we have enough implementations on those features to go ahead with either changes or PR transition?
16:50:55 <npdoty> q+
16:51:01 <wseltzer> schunter: does anyone object to continuing
16:51:02 <wseltzer> q+
16:51:47 <wseltzer> schunter: we have TPE in CR, if we recharter, I'd actively call for implementatoins, few months feedback, look for features to improve, drop, and then push to Rec
16:51:56 <wseltzer> ... alternative, leave in CR
16:52:11 <wseltzer> ack npdoty
16:52:21 <wseltzer> npdoty: do we have enough implementations already to go ahead?
16:52:46 <wseltzer> schunter: formally, we probably have enough'
16:52:56 <wseltzer> ... but I'd be inclined to call for input
16:53:04 <wseltzer> dsinger: you need to ask that question of every feature
16:53:13 <wseltzer> ... I think the exceptions API is clearly at-risk
16:53:26 <dsinger> q?
16:53:28 <wseltzer> schunter: agree
16:53:42 <jeff> Wendy: We HAVE called for implementations
16:53:54 <jeff> ... we can call for such reports at PING without rechartering
16:54:06 <jeff> ... do we have people that are committed to doing the work?
16:54:06 <dsinger> q+ to ask that BOTH specs be revised to indicate (a) how to report experience and bugs and (b) link to the list of reported bugs. No matter what else we do.
16:54:10 <moneill2> yes
16:54:20 <jeff> ... analyzing the reports, updating the specs
16:54:34 <jeff> ... so that if we ever recharter we would have commitment to getting work done
16:54:53 <jeff> ... otherwise - once we hear that there is implementation experience
16:54:54 <wseltzer> ack ws
16:55:03 <wseltzer> schunter: I can chair for the TPE
16:55:04 <jeff> ... we can then reopen the chartering discussion.
16:55:12 <wseltzer> ... question to David and Roy
16:55:19 <wseltzer> Fielding: I'm available
16:55:40 <wseltzer> ... I'd prefer that we not call for implementation experience until after we've asked browsers informally what they want to do
16:55:53 <wseltzer> ... no point in talking about current TPE if no one plans to implement JS API
16:56:05 <wseltzer> ... we could think about cookie-based API instead
16:56:19 <wseltzer> ... wouldn't need to charter a WG, could experiment on the side
16:56:23 <npdoty> if we're going to design new APIs, I think we should do that in a WG that has IPR protection
16:56:35 <wseltzer> ... so I'd say don't call for implementation until we have indication of implementation interest
16:56:39 <wseltzer> ... informal
16:56:49 <dsinger> q?
16:56:55 <wseltzer> schunter: so you'd start with informal discussion
16:57:14 <wseltzer> Fielding: just with the browser devs who haven't implemented parts of the protocol we consider significant
16:57:17 <wseltzer> ack dsinger
16:57:17 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask that BOTH specs be revised to indicate (a) how to report experience and bugs and (b) link to the list of reported bugs. No matter what else we do.
16:57:37 <wseltzer> dsinger: Neither spec indicates how to file a bug, how to find out what bugs have been reported
16:57:46 <wseltzer> ... should revise CRs to point
16:57:55 <npdoty> I think all specs have a note about where to report experience, with a link to the mailing list
16:58:03 <wseltzer> ... I think we'll find browsers are pragmatic, waiting to hear need
16:58:15 <wseltzer> ... they wont' implement API until htey hear servers need
16:58:16 <jeff> q+ to ask more about chicken and egg problem
16:58:28 <wseltzer> Fielding: and servers say they wont' implement exceptions until browser do
16:58:45 <wseltzer> schunter: EFF has specified Compliance doc, does anyone know if it's adopted?
16:58:56 <wseltzer> CraigS: We've been tracking adoption
16:59:02 <npdoty> schunter, the EFF doc isn't a TPE equivalent, which I think is the current topic
16:59:08 <wseltzer> ... about 3.5-4% of sites honoring
16:59:32 <schunter> (as discovered by looking at the privacy policy).
16:59:54 <wseltzer> ... people reached out to us, wanting to implement, but how, it's not yet done?
16:59:57 <wseltzer> ... circular references
17:00:20 <wseltzer> ... 35% of sites doing disclosure of DNT use
17:00:21 <npdoty> just letting people know there is an implementable compliance specification shouldn't be too hard, I hope :)
17:00:34 <jeff> q?
17:00:46 <wseltzer> schunter: should we continue next week
17:00:50 <wseltzer> wseltzer: Regrets next wee
17:00:51 <npdoty> or could we discuss on the list?
17:00:51 <Vincent> sgtm
17:00:54 <wseltzer> s/wee/week/
17:01:05 <wseltzer> wileys: or 2 weeks
17:01:12 <schunter> q?
17:01:15 <wseltzer> ack jeff
17:01:16 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask more about chicken and egg problem
17:01:30 <wseltzer> jeff: 2 different kinds of chicken and egg problems
17:02:00 <wseltzer> ... one possibility, servers and clients really want to get a Rec, but can't justify resources because they don't know the other is doing it
17:02:06 <dsinger> things to consider:  (1) edit both specs to encourage implementation and bug report (2) link both specs to reports received (3) extend long enough to think about (a) the chicken-and-egg problem and (b) the async exceptions API problem. (4) ask for a short charter extension while we think (5) convey clearly that we’re waiting for implementation, the ball is not in the W3C court.
17:02:13 <wseltzer> ... if we're in that situation, bring parties together, find a way
17:02:33 <wseltzer> ... or, alternatively, neither side, or only one side, has any interest in implementing .In that case, there's nothing we can do
17:02:34 <moneill2> q+
17:02:56 <wseltzer> ... in the run-up to CR, I had lots of conversations with people exasperated with the process
17:03:16 <Vincent> Chiken and egg is not between client and server, but between us waiting for implemntation and server and clients waiting for a recommendations
17:03:18 <wseltzer> ... team wasn't pushing hard to recharter, because of impression that people don't really want to implement
17:03:38 <wseltzer> ... if someone proved us wrong, then we shoudl recharter
17:03:45 <wseltzer> ... get facts on the table before deciding
17:03:56 <wseltzer> schunter: reconvene in 3 week
17:04:04 <wseltzer> ... I'd like to talk to @@
17:04:19 <wseltzer> ... whether they're interested in implementing on server side
17:04:24 <Vincent> why 3 weeks?
17:04:27 <walter> That period isn't too good either
17:04:30 <wseltzer> q+
17:04:52 <walter> +1
17:05:03 <wseltzer> moneill2: I'd go for next week
17:05:05 <Vincent> 10th, 17th or 31st would work for me
17:05:07 <wseltzer> ... enough activity to talk
17:05:23 <wileys> 17th or 24th work for me
17:05:25 <wseltzer> ... re chicken and egg, it's important to hear about JS API plans
17:05:45 <Vincent> also in favor of next week
17:05:48 <wseltzer> schunter: 31
17:05:51 <rvaneijk> 31st fine with me
17:05:58 <wileys> 31st works for me
17:06:08 <wseltzer> schunter: next week and 31st
17:06:10 <jeff> 10th or 31st work for me
17:06:16 <wileys> I won’t be able to join with only one week notice - have a standard conflict
17:06:22 <wileys> standing
17:06:28 <moneill2> i am but they dont answer
17:06:33 <walter> Weren't they on the group anyway?
17:06:44 <wseltzer> schunter: can people talk with browsers?
17:07:13 <wileys> wileys has left #dnt
17:07:29 <wseltzer> Next meetings, August 10 and August 31
17:07:35 <wseltzer> [adjourned]
17:07:40 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
17:07:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-dnt-minutes.html wseltzer
17:08:03 <Vincent> thanks wseltzer for scribbing
17:59:24 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
19:31:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
21:20:19 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt