16:59:52 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 16:59:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/30-dnt-irc 16:59:53 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:59:55 Zakim, this will be 16:59:55 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 16:59:56 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 16:59:56 Date: 30 November 2011 16:59:59 sidstamm has joined #dnt 17:00:28 + +1.949.483.aadd 17:00:31 +??P56 17:00:33 enewland has joined #dnt 17:00:34 ileana has joined #dnt 17:00:47 +npdoty 17:00:51 tedleung has joined #dnt 17:00:53 + +1.202.326.aaee 17:01:03 +Ted 17:01:07 +fielding 17:01:11 + +1.301.270.aaff 17:01:14 i think this building must be made from nothing but faraday cages 17:01:15 + +1.425.269.aagg 17:01:20 Chris has joined #dnt 17:01:21 + +1.646.654.aahh 17:01:33 + +1.650.862.aaii 17:01:39 +Justin 17:01:41 bryan has joined #dnt 17:01:46 202=Chuck 17:01:49 aadd is Frank G at BlueCava 17:01:50 + +3249434aajj 17:01:59 eberkower has joined #dnt 17:01:59 Zakim, aadd is FrankG_BlueCava 17:02:01 +[Mozilla] 17:02:02 zakim aaee is Chuck 17:02:03 +FrankG_BlueCava; got it 17:02:08 + +1.415.734.aakk 17:02:10 aabb is hefferjr 17:02:18 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:02:19 On the phone I see aleecia, +1.646.825.aaaa, +1.813.366.aabb, WileyS, +1.202.835.aacc, efelten, FrankG_BlueCava, ??P56, npdoty, +1.202.326.aaee, Ted, fielding, +1.301.270.aaff, 17:02:19 Zakim, aagg is SueG 17:02:24 zakim aabb is hefferjr 17:02:27 ksmith has joined #DNT 17:02:29 ... +1.425.269.aagg, +1.646.654.aahh, +1.650.862.aaii, Justin, +3249434aajj, [Mozilla], +1.415.734.aakk 17:02:34 +SueG; got it 17:02:40 Zakim, aaee is PederMagee 17:02:42 + +1.425.214.aall - is perhaps SungOk_You? 17:02:50 +PederMagee; got it 17:02:51 Zakim, aaee is pmagee 17:02:53 zakim, aakk is KevinT 17:02:53 Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm 17:02:58 justin has joined #dnt 17:03:02 + +1.609.627.aamm 17:03:08 sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee' 17:03:10 +KevinT; got it 17:03:12 +sidstamm; got it 17:03:14 alex has joined #dnt 17:03:14 carmenb has joined #dnt 17:03:18 + +1.425.281.aann 17:03:19 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 17:03:20 +carmenb 17:03:32 Zakim, aacc is chuck 17:03:32 present+ Bryan_Sullivan 17:03:34 +chuck; got it 17:03:57 kimon has joined #dnt 17:04:02 + +385221aaoo 17:04:05 agenda should be in email, I don't have a working link at the moment 17:04:14 +Justin.a 17:04:14 pmagee has joined #dnt 17:04:15 zakim, Ted is tedleung 17:04:20 +tedleung; got it 17:04:30 Zakim, aann is bryan 17:04:30 +bryan; got it 17:04:34 volunteers for scribe? 17:04:39 +alex 17:04:58 +Joseph_Scheuhammer 17:05:13 alex has joined #dnt 17:05:17 scribenick: bryan 17:05:34 Topic: Agenda 17:05:51 http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-dnt-minutes 17:05:51 +tl 17:05:52 having trouble getting into phone bridge. will keep dialing 17:06:00 Topic: minutes of last call 17:06:17 + +1.202.744.aapp 17:06:29 RESOLUTION: minutes are approved http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-dnt-minutes 17:06:33 adrianba has joined #dnt 17:06:36 Topic: next F2F 17:07:18 Next meeting details presented 17:07:32 Zakim, mute me 17:07:32 alex should now be muted 17:07:33 Lia has joined #dnt 17:07:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Nov/0298.html 17:07:51 call bridge repeatedly won't let me complete call in.. 17:07:56 +[Microsoft] 17:08:08 meeting will be Tuesday 24 January until Thursday 26 January 17:08:11 zakim, [Microsoft] has adrianba 17:08:11 +adrianba; got it 17:08:25 Email re: f2f went out this morning 17:08:27 + +1.978.944.aaqq 17:08:37 the concurrent meeting is http://www.cpdpconferences.org/ 17:08:51 +johnsimpson 17:08:55 in now 17:08:59 Discussion of conference 17:09:03 chair: schunter 17:09:08 zakim mute me 17:09:18 Zakim, mute johnsimpson 17:09:18 johnsimpson should now be muted 17:09:23 + +1.516.376.aarr 17:09:28 justin: large European conference on privacy 17:09:42 we could have a potential outreach session on Friday at the cpdp conference 17:10:27 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/pendingreview 17:10:31 -??P56 17:10:36 Topic: open issue cleanup 17:10:49 +dsriedel 17:10:52 Zakim, who is speaking? 17:10:56 Frank has joined #dnt 17:11:03 npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dsriedel (4%), PederMagee (15%) 17:11:05 zakim, mute me 17:11:05 dsriedel should now be muted 17:11:15 andyzei has joined #dnt 17:11:21 ISSUE-4? 17:11:21 ISSUE-4 -- What is the default for DNT in client configuration (opt-in or opt-out)? -- pending review 17:11:21 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/4 17:11:23 am haring nothing 17:11:30 me neither 17:11:33 am hearing nothing. 17:11:34 the rest is silence 17:11:37 hello 17:11:43 I hear you know 17:11:48 zakim unmute me 17:11:57 Matthias: to close issues asap 17:12:07 (matthias dropped off) 17:12:13 issue-13? 17:12:14 ISSUE-13 -- What are the requirements for DNT on apps/native software in addition to browsers? -- pending review 17:12:14 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/13 17:12:22 issue-78? 17:12:23 ISSUE-78 -- What is the difference between absence of DNT header and DNT = 0? -- pending review 17:12:23 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/78 17:12:25 Issue 4: Default for DNT 17:12:34 Issue 13... 17:12:44 +??P20 17:12:51 JC has joined #DNT 17:13:18 +? 17:13:27 zakim, unmute me 17:13:28 johnsimpson should no longer be muted 17:13:49 matthias: text proposals already 17:13:53 q+ 17:14:07 ack bryan 17:14:20 q+ 17:14:21 bryan: would prefer to have some time to review issues before they're closed 17:14:30 bryan: would prefer to have a few days to review 17:14:36 + +1.508.655.aass 17:14:46 + +1.206.619.aatt 17:14:48 kj has joined #dnt 17:14:48 matthias: to send an email on closure pending review 17:15:03 ack johnsimpson 17:15:24 john: language is related to FPWD 17:15:41 zakim mute me 17:15:42 @@@: notes on the issues will clarify the background 17:15:51 s/@@@/npdoty/ 17:15:54 agreed. saying which issues will be closed in an agenda at 2am the night before the call is a little late 17:15:57 Zakim, mute johnsimpson 17:15:57 johnsimpson should now be muted 17:15:59 Zakim, mute me 17:15:59 npdoty should now be muted 17:16:28 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 17:16:53 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues 17:16:57 Topic: Open Issues 17:17:11 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/open 17:17:21 matthias: look at left over issues and plan for the rest 17:17:24 issue-27? 17:17:24 ISSUE-27 -- How should the "opt back in" mechanism be designed? -- open 17:17:24 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/27 17:17:28 issue-51? 17:17:28 ISSUE-51 -- Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal -- open 17:17:28 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/51 17:17:32 issue-95? 17:17:32 ISSUE-95 -- May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user? -- open 17:17:32 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/95 17:17:36 issue-87? 17:17:36 ISSUE-87 -- Should there be an option for the server to respond with "I don't know what my policy is" -- open 17:17:37 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/87 17:17:40 ... Issue 27, 51, 95, 87 17:18:46 can we end with issue 27? 17:18:50 shane: Issue 22 may be too meaty, put at the end 17:19:02 s/Issue 22/Issue 27/ 17:19:09 s/22/27 17:19:27 +1 17:20:01 matthias: Issue 51 17:20:16 ..ISSUE-51: Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal 17:20:19 efelten has joined #dnt 17:20:24 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/51 17:20:25 +q 17:20:26 q+ 17:20:28 +q 17:20:37 ack WileyS 17:20:38 BrianTs has joined #dnt 17:20:42 +[IPcaller] 17:20:48 ack WileyS 17:20:49 +q 17:21:03 Zakim, [IPcaller] is rvaneijk 17:21:03 +rvaneijk; got it 17:21:10 ack tl 17:21:13 q? 17:21:19 +[Microsoft.a] 17:21:23 q+ 17:21:29 npdoty: impression that the consensus was "yes" as per the draft sent to the list 17:21:38 s/npdoty/tl/ 17:21:43 ack WileyS 17:21:43 q- 17:21:56 Zakim, [Microsoft.a] has BrianTs 17:21:56 +BrianTs; got it 17:22:10 + +1.347.689.aauu 17:22:22 Zakim, unmute me 17:22:22 npdoty should no longer be muted 17:22:38 WileyS: agree, we had come to consensus that 1st party must ack the user that the signal was received and response etc 17:22:45 schunter has joined #dnt 17:22:47 ack fielding 17:22:50 ack fielding 17:22:57 +1 on consensus on 51 17:23:08 roy: disagree on consensus - see no reason for 1st party to respond 17:23:10 +q 17:23:20 q? 17:23:20 +q 17:23:26 ack tl 17:23:39 q+ 17:24:04 tl: actively blocking or just think it's not a good idea? 17:24:21 +q 17:24:22 efelten has joined #dnt 17:24:30 roy: expressing disapproval - would prefer some justification for this rather extensive change to HTTP, not yet deployed 17:25:12 tl: impression that consensus is to move forward, no sustained objections. 17:25:43 matthias: need text proposal with justifications, with details e.g. restrictions 17:25:47 chapell has joined #dnt 17:25:50 if roy is looking for justifications, I think there are some that have been expressed, right? 17:26:04 Nick, I do believe so, yes 17:26:21 tl: proposal sent three weeks ago, not much discussion but no one suggested blocking it 17:26:33 fielding, did you not see any justifications? or did you not agree with the thinking? 17:26:34 q+ 17:26:49 +q 17:26:55 +q 17:26:56 ... use cases have been proposed on the list, with discussion but no blocking objections 17:27:17 roy: repeat unless there is a substantial reason for the header, it won't be there 17:27:30 Please honor the queue :-) 17:27:39 q? 17:27:41 ack fielding 17:27:43 tl: believe a substantial need has been demonstrated in F2F and on the list 17:28:02 I have read the VARY usecase Roy has put forward several times and agree that caching is something into account 17:28:25 matthias: propose to postpone discussion, and review emails with Roy 17:28:26 the current proposal takes caching into account 17:28:43 ... and whether header is needed on all responses 17:28:56 Agreed - not all responses - just those not subject to caching - that'll be more than enough 17:28:57 Small websites are unlikely to respond to a DNT header. What are the implications of that? 17:28:59 q- 17:29:00 ... read Issue 51 as whether 1st party should send any response at all 17:29:13 bq? 17:29:15 q? 17:29:17 q- 17:29:25 ack WileyS 17:29:25 I also don't believe it has any functional value in accomplishing the task of the protocol (telling the server what the client's expression is) 17:29:26 ack WileyS 17:29:29 - +1.646.654.aahh 17:29:43 WileyS: agree that it should only be responses not subject to caching 17:29:49 Actually I'm not convinced that there should be caching off the table, 17:29:50 s/expression/expressed preference/ 17:29:59 since fingerprinting etc. are still an issue. 17:30:01 isn't another task of the protocol to enable transparency for the user? 17:30:10 ... Roy had advised a way to meet that objective - we do want the server to respond, but not break caches 17:30:13 agree with Nick 17:30:19 chesterj1 has joined #dnt 17:30:19 q? 17:30:22 this is actually accounted for in the proposal 17:30:27 amyc has joined #dnt 17:30:48 + +1.202.346.aavv 17:31:11 hwest has joined #dnt 17:31:16 tl: proposal did account for caching, including a 5-character header on cacheable objects. 17:31:27 ... need to move forward unless there is an alternative 17:31:31 q? 17:31:51 tom's proposal is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Nov/0067.html 17:32:05 roy: agree on the need for an alternative to meet the objective, but have objected to this approach several times 17:32:06 Tom, where is the language? In the email exchange on issue 51 on the trscker? 17:32:11 ack tl 17:32:12 ack ksmith 17:32:15 Also, issue-21 is "enable external audit of DNT" -- this is an implicit issue here too 17:32:20 johnsimpson, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Nov/0067.html 17:32:39 ksmith: wondering what the debate is about... should 1st party return a header, and what should the header look like? 17:32:53 bryan: I agree we should break this into smaller problems 17:32:57 the current response header includes 1p responses 17:33:16 this issue has been discussed, and a solution proposed 17:33:19 user transparency is crucial and 1st party response is important part of that, especially w/the reality that users will have different expectations of DNT 17:33:27 - Should 1st parties send responses at all (or be exempted) 17:33:27 - What should a header look like? 17:33:27 - Should the header be sent on all elements or just the non-cacheable subset. 17:33:30 ... benefit from addressing just whether there should be a header 17:33:31 +1 17:33:51 efelten has joined #dnt 17:34:08 matthias: good suggestion, narrow 51 re whether 1st party is exempt from sending the header 17:34:23 One of the few things we clearly agreed to was Yes, first parties must receive a header. 17:34:26 51 is only about 1st party 17:34:32 Frankie has joined #dnt 17:34:32 ... (a) exemption (b) what should the header look like (c) what is effect on caches 17:34:34 -SueG 17:34:39 q? 17:34:49 - +1.516.376.aarr 17:34:50 If we're echoing what we get, then first parties would also send a response 17:34:55 ... impression that we have agreement on the need for a header to be sent 17:35:15 roy: keep in mind that 99% of the web does not use tracking and this impacts them 17:35:20 Hi there no chance to dial in, conference is full 17:35:22 q+ 17:35:24 +q 17:35:28 chesterj1 has joined #dnt 17:35:33 non-compliant servers can continue to ignore the recommendation, right? 17:35:42 yes, yes they can 17:35:44 Nick: exactly my point 17:36:04 q- 17:36:14 matthias: did not think we wanted all sites to send the header, only if DNT was received and the server is mandated to respond 17:36:20 -q 17:36:27 - Response headers should only be sent if you received a request with DNT 17:36:31 ... will refresh the issues and make a proposal 17:36:46 - if you do not intend to comply with DNT, no need to send a DNT response header 17:36:50 q? 17:37:20 +q 17:37:22 +q 17:37:25 q+ 17:37:26 q? 17:37:31 q+ 17:37:33 ...ISSUE-87: Should there be an option for the server to respond with "I don't know what my policy is" 17:37:51 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/87 17:37:57 + +49.175.181.aaww 17:38:04 tl: the answer should be no, there is no option to respond in that way 17:38:17 +q 17:38:19 q? 17:38:20 WileyS: it should be a definitive response 17:38:21 Thx nick 17:38:23 ack tl 17:38:25 q? 17:38:25 ack WileyS 17:38:28 ack dwainberg 17:38:29 zakim, unmute me 17:38:29 johnsimpson should no longer be muted 17:38:38 dwainberg: should allow for "don't know" option 17:39:05 ... there is a difference between not responding because its not subject to DNT, or subject but not compliant 17:39:17 +q 17:39:17 ... we should plan for where the server does not know the answer 17:39:21 +[Microsoft.aa] 17:39:22 they could not reply 17:39:23 q? 17:39:28 tl, WileyS : no, either you give a specific response or you're not compliant 17:39:31 ... if they have to respond otherwise they may be wrong 17:39:39 David - please give an example where a company won't know? Wouldn't it be better to not respond at all if there is a certain perspective? 17:39:42 ksmith: had the same question 17:40:04 ... difference between I don't know, blank response, no response 17:40:22 to me "I don't know" means "please start an enforcement action against my company" 17:40:36 aleecia, +1 17:40:37 :-) 17:40:38 dwainberg: if servers not subject send no response, or not compliant sends no response, there is ambiguity 17:40:41 So if that's what you all really want... 17:40:59 q? 17:41:00 q? 17:41:06 Is there a use case where a user agent would behave differently in the two cases (no-response vs. don't-know)? 17:41:07 -q 17:41:09 ackn ksmith 17:41:17 +q 17:41:18 zakim, mute me 17:41:19 johnsimpson should now be muted 17:41:20 ... giving the server a don't know option makes resolves the ambiguity 17:41:36 to clarify, all servers are "subject to DNT" in the current drafts 17:41:44 efelten, not as far as i can see. either case means "i can't promise that i'm in compliance" 17:41:58 -q 17:42:04 ksmith: think the end result is that dont know will be interpreted as no response, and don't see the value yet 17:42:06 -q 17:42:38 q? 17:42:43 +q 17:42:43 -q 17:42:50 +q 17:42:50 schunter: if we don't have agreement, this may be a "not urgently required" aspect, and may be dropped 17:42:51 +1 no reason to have don't know. 17:43:40 ... David, could take an action to explain how a browser would treat both cases differently, and what the value is to the end user 17:44:03 q? 17:44:15 altaf has joined #dnt 17:45:22 WileyS: if the assumption is that there is no response, the party is saying I don't need to be in compliance. but it the company is responsible, it should respond. thus no response should mean DNT is not implemented 17:45:55 @@@: any lack of response should be "not in compliance" for whatever reason 17:45:59 act tl 17:46:06 s/@@@/tl/ 17:46:22 q? 17:46:26 ack WileyS 17:46:26 tl, that's called a formal objection (if it were in the spec), not a block 17:46:28 ack tl 17:46:28 q- 17:46:28 schunter: have enough input, propose to close the issue after David's input 17:46:30 +q 17:46:40 ...ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user? 17:46:49 fielding, formal objection is only once it's in a published spec 17:47:06 ... is this issue a compliance or expression question? 17:47:15 q? 17:47:22 tl, right that's what the parens are for ;-) 17:47:27 WileyS: already wrote a draft and sent it 17:47:28 q? 17:47:50 tl: comfortable with the draft 17:48:13 schunter: so the list will review the text and respond 17:48:27 ...ISSUE-27: How should the "opt back in" mechanism be designed? 17:48:33 q? 17:48:39 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/27 17:49:05 WileyS: technically discussed several options on site-specific exception 17:49:35