Re: Agenda for 28 November 2012 call - V02

Hi Matthias,

I think the v02 agenda did not take into account my comments on V01:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0315.html

Cheers,

David


On 11/27/12 2:26 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>
> V02: Added agenda item #6 at the end
> ---
>
> Hi Team,
>
> enclosed V01 of our agenda for Wednesday.
> Comments are welcome! (in particular if I overlooked any information 
> on the issues listed).
>
> Regards,
> matthias
>
>
>
> ---------------------------
> Administrative
> ---------------------------
>
> 1. Selection of scribe
>
> ---------------------------
> Old business
> ---------------------------
>
> 2. Review of overdue action items: 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owne 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner>
>
> 3.Quick check that callers are identified
>
> ---------------------------
> 4. ISSUES marked PENDING REVIEW
> ---------------------------
>
> Goal:
> - Agree on adding the proposed text (or create action for writing 
> alternative text)
>
> ISSUE-21: Enable external audit of DNT compliance
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/21
> Are we OK with adding the text proposal by Kevin to our spec:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0000.html
>
> ISSUE-113: How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
>
> On these issues IMHO the status is as follows:
> - If a site-wide exception is requested, all subdomains are 
> automatically included
> - This issue is only relevant for explicit/explicit lists of domains 
> (if the site uses them)
> - An original proposal (from Ian) used cookie-like handling
> - The current approach requires explicit listing of all sub-domains
> - Is this current approach OK or do we need to text alternatives?
>
> ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between 
> first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first 
> party (s)
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
>
> IMHO:
> - The minutes at http://www.w3.org/2012/10/05-dnt-minutes
>    contain some text on ISSUE-137
> - No action is assigned
> - TODO: Discuss and define way forward
>
> ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
>     Review non-normative text by Nick and agree that it is OK to put 
> into the spec.
>
> ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests 
> but does not necessarily initiate them?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
>       Proposed text (by david and nick): "Software outside of the user 
> agent that causes a DNT header to be sent (or modifies existing 
> headers) MUST NOT
>    do so without following the requirements of this section; such 
> software is responsible for assuring the expressed preference reflects 
> the user's intent."
>
> ---------------------------
> 5. ISSUES marked OPEN
> ---------------------------
>
> Goal: review open issues at 
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2
> and assign actions to them
>
> ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164
>
> My understanding of the minutes is that we agreed in Amsterdam:
> - keep a MAY (optional)
> - Say that if a site that loads additional content "to be used in 1st 
> party context" (flag: 1)
>    from other domains, this content may not work properly unless this 
> domain is desclared as "same-party"
> - If this approach is still OK, I suggest to create an action to 
> textify it.
>
> ---------------------------
> 6. Next steps on the compliance doc (Aleecia, last 30mins)
>
> 7. Announce next meeting & adjourn
>
> ================ Infrastructure =================
>
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
> IRC Chat: irc.w3.org <http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
>
> *****
>