IRC log of dnt on 2011-11-30
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:59:52 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #dnt
- 16:59:52 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/30-dnt-irc
- 16:59:53 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 16:59:55 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 16:59:55 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 16:59:56 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
- 16:59:56 [trackbot]
- Date: 30 November 2011
- 16:59:59 [sidstamm]
- sidstamm has joined #dnt
- 17:00:28 [Zakim]
- + +1.949.483.aadd
- 17:00:31 [Zakim]
- +??P56
- 17:00:33 [enewland]
- enewland has joined #dnt
- 17:00:34 [ileana]
- ileana has joined #dnt
- 17:00:47 [Zakim]
- +npdoty
- 17:00:51 [tedleung]
- tedleung has joined #dnt
- 17:00:53 [Zakim]
- + +1.202.326.aaee
- 17:01:03 [Zakim]
- +Ted
- 17:01:07 [Zakim]
- +fielding
- 17:01:11 [Zakim]
- + +1.301.270.aaff
- 17:01:14 [tl]
- i think this building must be made from nothing but faraday cages
- 17:01:15 [Zakim]
- + +1.425.269.aagg
- 17:01:20 [Chris]
- Chris has joined #dnt
- 17:01:21 [Zakim]
- + +1.646.654.aahh
- 17:01:33 [Zakim]
- + +1.650.862.aaii
- 17:01:39 [Zakim]
- +Justin
- 17:01:41 [bryan]
- bryan has joined #dnt
- 17:01:46 [chuck]
- 202=Chuck
- 17:01:49 [Frank_]
- aadd is Frank G at BlueCava
- 17:01:50 [Zakim]
- + +3249434aajj
- 17:01:59 [eberkower]
- eberkower has joined #dnt
- 17:01:59 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aadd is FrankG_BlueCava
- 17:02:01 [Zakim]
- +[Mozilla]
- 17:02:02 [tl]
- zakim aaee is Chuck
- 17:02:03 [Zakim]
- +FrankG_BlueCava; got it
- 17:02:08 [Zakim]
- + +1.415.734.aakk
- 17:02:10 [hefferjr]
- aabb is hefferjr
- 17:02:18 [efelten]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:02:19 [Zakim]
- 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 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aagg is SueG
- 17:02:24 [hefferjr]
- zakim aabb is hefferjr
- 17:02:27 [ksmith]
- ksmith has joined #DNT
- 17:02:29 [Zakim]
- ... +1.425.269.aagg, +1.646.654.aahh, +1.650.862.aaii, Justin, +3249434aajj, [Mozilla], +1.415.734.aakk
- 17:02:34 [Zakim]
- +SueG; got it
- 17:02:40 [efelten]
- Zakim, aaee is PederMagee
- 17:02:42 [Zakim]
- + +1.425.214.aall - is perhaps SungOk_You?
- 17:02:50 [Zakim]
- +PederMagee; got it
- 17:02:51 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aaee is pmagee
- 17:02:53 [KevinT]
- zakim, aakk is KevinT
- 17:02:53 [sidstamm]
- Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
- 17:02:58 [justin]
- justin has joined #dnt
- 17:03:02 [Zakim]
- + +1.609.627.aamm
- 17:03:08 [Zakim]
- sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
- 17:03:10 [Zakim]
- +KevinT; got it
- 17:03:12 [Zakim]
- +sidstamm; got it
- 17:03:14 [alex]
- alex has joined #dnt
- 17:03:14 [carmenb]
- carmenb has joined #dnt
- 17:03:18 [Zakim]
- + +1.425.281.aann
- 17:03:19 [johnsimpson]
- johnsimpson has joined #dnt
- 17:03:20 [Zakim]
- +carmenb
- 17:03:32 [efelten]
- Zakim, aacc is chuck
- 17:03:32 [bryan]
- present+ Bryan_Sullivan
- 17:03:34 [Zakim]
- +chuck; got it
- 17:03:57 [kimon]
- kimon has joined #dnt
- 17:04:02 [Zakim]
- + +385221aaoo
- 17:04:05 [npdoty]
- agenda should be in email, I don't have a working link at the moment
- 17:04:14 [Zakim]
- +Justin.a
- 17:04:14 [pmagee]
- pmagee has joined #dnt
- 17:04:15 [tedleung]
- zakim, Ted is tedleung
- 17:04:20 [Zakim]
- +tedleung; got it
- 17:04:30 [bryan]
- Zakim, aann is bryan
- 17:04:30 [Zakim]
- +bryan; got it
- 17:04:34 [npdoty]
- volunteers for scribe?
- 17:04:39 [Zakim]
- +alex
- 17:04:58 [Zakim]
- +Joseph_Scheuhammer
- 17:05:13 [alex]
- alex has joined #dnt
- 17:05:17 [npdoty]
- scribenick: bryan
- 17:05:34 [bryan]
- Topic: Agenda
- 17:05:51 [npdoty]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-dnt-minutes
- 17:05:51 [Zakim]
- +tl
- 17:05:52 [johnsimpson]
- having trouble getting into phone bridge. will keep dialing
- 17:06:00 [bryan]
- Topic: minutes of last call
- 17:06:17 [Zakim]
- + +1.202.744.aapp
- 17:06:29 [bryan]
- RESOLUTION: minutes are approved http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-dnt-minutes
- 17:06:33 [adrianba]
- adrianba has joined #dnt
- 17:06:36 [bryan]
- Topic: next F2F
- 17:07:18 [bryan]
- Next meeting details presented
- 17:07:32 [alex]
- Zakim, mute me
- 17:07:32 [Zakim]
- alex should now be muted
- 17:07:33 [Lia]
- Lia has joined #dnt
- 17:07:34 [npdoty]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Nov/0298.html
- 17:07:51 [johnsimpson]
- call bridge repeatedly won't let me complete call in..
- 17:07:56 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 17:08:08 [npdoty]
- meeting will be Tuesday 24 January until Thursday 26 January
- 17:08:11 [adrianba]
- zakim, [Microsoft] has adrianba
- 17:08:11 [Zakim]
- +adrianba; got it
- 17:08:25 [aleecia]
- Email re: f2f went out this morning
- 17:08:27 [Zakim]
- + +1.978.944.aaqq
- 17:08:37 [npdoty]
- the concurrent meeting is http://www.cpdpconferences.org/
- 17:08:51 [Zakim]
- +johnsimpson
- 17:08:55 [johnsimpson]
- in now
- 17:08:59 [bryan]
- Discussion of conference
- 17:09:03 [npdoty]
- chair: schunter
- 17:09:08 [johnsimpson]
- zakim mute me
- 17:09:18 [npdoty]
- Zakim, mute johnsimpson
- 17:09:18 [Zakim]
- johnsimpson should now be muted
- 17:09:23 [Zakim]
- + +1.516.376.aarr
- 17:09:28 [bryan]
- justin: large European conference on privacy
- 17:09:42 [npdoty]
- we could have a potential outreach session on Friday at the cpdp conference
- 17:10:27 [npdoty]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/pendingreview
- 17:10:31 [Zakim]
- -??P56
- 17:10:36 [bryan]
- Topic: open issue cleanup
- 17:10:49 [Zakim]
- +dsriedel
- 17:10:52 [npdoty]
- Zakim, who is speaking?
- 17:10:56 [Frank]
- Frank has joined #dnt
- 17:11:03 [Zakim]
- npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dsriedel (4%), PederMagee (15%)
- 17:11:05 [dsriedel]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:11:05 [Zakim]
- dsriedel should now be muted
- 17:11:15 [andyzei]
- andyzei has joined #dnt
- 17:11:21 [npdoty]
- ISSUE-4?
- 17:11:21 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-4 -- What is the default for DNT in client configuration (opt-in or opt-out)? -- pending review
- 17:11:21 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/4
- 17:11:23 [johnsimpson]
- am haring nothing
- 17:11:30 [dsriedel]
- me neither
- 17:11:33 [johnsimpson]
- am hearing nothing.
- 17:11:34 [tl]
- the rest is silence
- 17:11:37 [dsriedel]
- hello
- 17:11:43 [dsriedel]
- I hear you know
- 17:11:48 [johnsimpson]
- zakim unmute me
- 17:11:57 [bryan]
- Matthias: to close issues asap
- 17:12:07 [bryan]
- (matthias dropped off)
- 17:12:13 [npdoty]
- issue-13?
- 17:12:14 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-13 -- What are the requirements for DNT on apps/native software in addition to browsers? -- pending review
- 17:12:14 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/13
- 17:12:22 [npdoty]
- issue-78?
- 17:12:23 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-78 -- What is the difference between absence of DNT header and DNT = 0? -- pending review
- 17:12:23 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/78
- 17:12:25 [bryan]
- Issue 4: Default for DNT
- 17:12:34 [bryan]
- Issue 13...
- 17:12:44 [Zakim]
- +??P20
- 17:12:51 [JC]
- JC has joined #DNT
- 17:13:18 [tl]
- +?
- 17:13:27 [johnsimpson]
- zakim, unmute me
- 17:13:28 [Zakim]
- johnsimpson should no longer be muted
- 17:13:49 [bryan]
- matthias: text proposals already
- 17:13:53 [bryan]
- q+
- 17:14:07 [npdoty]
- ack bryan
- 17:14:20 [johnsimpson]
- q+
- 17:14:21 [npdoty]
- bryan: would prefer to have some time to review issues before they're closed
- 17:14:30 [bryan]
- bryan: would prefer to have a few days to review
- 17:14:36 [Zakim]
- + +1.508.655.aass
- 17:14:46 [Zakim]
- + +1.206.619.aatt
- 17:14:48 [kj]
- kj has joined #dnt
- 17:14:48 [bryan]
- matthias: to send an email on closure pending review
- 17:15:03 [npdoty]
- ack johnsimpson
- 17:15:24 [bryan]
- john: language is related to FPWD
- 17:15:41 [johnsimpson]
- zakim mute me
- 17:15:42 [bryan]
- @@@: notes on the issues will clarify the background
- 17:15:51 [npdoty]
- s/@@@/npdoty/
- 17:15:54 [tl]
- agreed. saying which issues will be closed in an agenda at 2am the night before the call is a little late
- 17:15:57 [npdoty]
- Zakim, mute johnsimpson
- 17:15:57 [Zakim]
- johnsimpson should now be muted
- 17:15:59 [npdoty]
- Zakim, mute me
- 17:15:59 [Zakim]
- npdoty should now be muted
- 17:16:28 [rvaneijk]
- rvaneijk has joined #dnt
- 17:16:53 [fielding]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues
- 17:16:57 [bryan]
- Topic: Open Issues
- 17:17:11 [fielding]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/open
- 17:17:21 [bryan]
- matthias: look at left over issues and plan for the rest
- 17:17:24 [npdoty]
- issue-27?
- 17:17:24 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-27 -- How should the "opt back in" mechanism be designed? -- open
- 17:17:24 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/27
- 17:17:28 [npdoty]
- issue-51?
- 17:17:28 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-51 -- Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal -- open
- 17:17:28 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/51
- 17:17:32 [npdoty]
- issue-95?
- 17:17:32 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-95 -- May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user? -- open
- 17:17:32 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/95
- 17:17:36 [npdoty]
- issue-87?
- 17:17:36 [trackbot]
- 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 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/87
- 17:17:40 [bryan]
- ... Issue 27, 51, 95, 87
- 17:18:46 [tl]
- can we end with issue 27?
- 17:18:50 [bryan]
- shane: Issue 22 may be too meaty, put at the end
- 17:19:02 [npdoty]
- s/Issue 22/Issue 27/
- 17:19:09 [tl]
- s/22/27
- 17:19:27 [bryan]
- +1
- 17:20:01 [bryan]
- matthias: Issue 51
- 17:20:16 [bryan]
- ..ISSUE-51: Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal
- 17:20:19 [efelten]
- efelten has joined #dnt
- 17:20:24 [fielding]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/51
- 17:20:25 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:20:26 [npdoty]
- q+
- 17:20:28 [tl]
- +q
- 17:20:37 [npdoty]
- ack WileyS
- 17:20:38 [BrianTs]
- BrianTs has joined #dnt
- 17:20:42 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 17:20:48 [npdoty]
- ack WileyS
- 17:20:49 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:21:03 [rvaneijk]
- Zakim, [IPcaller] is rvaneijk
- 17:21:03 [Zakim]
- +rvaneijk; got it
- 17:21:10 [npdoty]
- ack tl
- 17:21:13 [aleecia]
- q?
- 17:21:19 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft.a]
- 17:21:23 [fielding]
- q+
- 17:21:29 [bryan]
- npdoty: impression that the consensus was "yes" as per the draft sent to the list
- 17:21:38 [npdoty]
- s/npdoty/tl/
- 17:21:43 [aleecia]
- ack WileyS
- 17:21:43 [npdoty]
- q-
- 17:21:56 [BrianTs]
- Zakim, [Microsoft.a] has BrianTs
- 17:21:56 [Zakim]
- +BrianTs; got it
- 17:22:10 [Zakim]
- + +1.347.689.aauu
- 17:22:22 [npdoty]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 17:22:22 [Zakim]
- npdoty should no longer be muted
- 17:22:38 [bryan]
- 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]
- schunter has joined #dnt
- 17:22:47 [npdoty]
- ack fielding
- 17:22:50 [aleecia]
- ack fielding
- 17:22:57 [johnsimpson]
- +1 on consensus on 51
- 17:23:08 [bryan]
- roy: disagree on consensus - see no reason for 1st party to respond
- 17:23:10 [tl]
- +q
- 17:23:20 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:23:20 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:23:26 [npdoty]
- ack tl
- 17:23:39 [dwainberg]
- q+
- 17:24:04 [bryan]
- tl: actively blocking or just think it's not a good idea?
- 17:24:21 [tl]
- +q
- 17:24:22 [efelten]
- efelten has joined #dnt
- 17:24:30 [bryan]
- roy: expressing disapproval - would prefer some justification for this rather extensive change to HTTP, not yet deployed
- 17:25:12 [bryan]
- tl: impression that consensus is to move forward, no sustained objections.
- 17:25:43 [bryan]
- matthias: need text proposal with justifications, with details e.g. restrictions
- 17:25:47 [chapell]
- chapell has joined #dnt
- 17:25:50 [npdoty]
- if roy is looking for justifications, I think there are some that have been expressed, right?
- 17:26:04 [aleecia]
- Nick, I do believe so, yes
- 17:26:21 [bryan]
- tl: proposal sent three weeks ago, not much discussion but no one suggested blocking it
- 17:26:33 [npdoty]
- fielding, did you not see any justifications? or did you not agree with the thinking?
- 17:26:34 [fielding]
- q+
- 17:26:49 [Frank_]
- +q
- 17:26:55 [ksmith]
- +q
- 17:26:56 [bryan]
- ... use cases have been proposed on the list, with discussion but no blocking objections
- 17:27:17 [bryan]
- roy: repeat unless there is a substantial reason for the header, it won't be there
- 17:27:30 [WileyS]
- Please honor the queue :-)
- 17:27:39 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:27:41 [aleecia]
- ack fielding
- 17:27:43 [bryan]
- tl: believe a substantial need has been demonstrated in F2F and on the list
- 17:28:02 [rvaneijk]
- I have read the VARY usecase Roy has put forward several times and agree that caching is something into account
- 17:28:25 [bryan]
- matthias: propose to postpone discussion, and review emails with Roy
- 17:28:26 [tl]
- the current proposal takes caching into account
- 17:28:43 [bryan]
- ... and whether header is needed on all responses
- 17:28:56 [WileyS]
- Agreed - not all responses - just those not subject to caching - that'll be more than enough
- 17:28:57 [Frank_]
- Small websites are unlikely to respond to a DNT header. What are the implications of that?
- 17:28:59 [dwainberg]
- q-
- 17:29:00 [bryan]
- ... read Issue 51 as whether 1st party should send any response at all
- 17:29:13 [schunter]
- bq?
- 17:29:15 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:29:17 [Frank_]
- q-
- 17:29:25 [aleecia]
- ack WileyS
- 17:29:25 [fielding]
- 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 [npdoty]
- ack WileyS
- 17:29:29 [Zakim]
- - +1.646.654.aahh
- 17:29:43 [bryan]
- WileyS: agree that it should only be responses not subject to caching
- 17:29:49 [aleecia]
- Actually I'm not convinced that there should be caching off the table,
- 17:29:50 [fielding]
- s/expression/expressed preference/
- 17:29:59 [aleecia]
- since fingerprinting etc. are still an issue.
- 17:30:01 [npdoty]
- isn't another task of the protocol to enable transparency for the user?
- 17:30:10 [bryan]
- ... Roy had advised a way to meet that objective - we do want the server to respond, but not break caches
- 17:30:13 [aleecia]
- agree with Nick
- 17:30:19 [chesterj1]
- chesterj1 has joined #dnt
- 17:30:19 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:30:22 [tl]
- this is actually accounted for in the proposal
- 17:30:27 [amyc]
- amyc has joined #dnt
- 17:30:48 [Zakim]
- + +1.202.346.aavv
- 17:31:11 [hwest]
- hwest has joined #dnt
- 17:31:16 [bryan]
- tl: proposal did account for caching, including a 5-character header on cacheable objects.
- 17:31:27 [bryan]
- ... need to move forward unless there is an alternative
- 17:31:31 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:31:51 [npdoty]
- tom's proposal is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Nov/0067.html
- 17:32:05 [bryan]
- roy: agree on the need for an alternative to meet the objective, but have objected to this approach several times
- 17:32:06 [johnsimpson]
- Tom, where is the language? In the email exchange on issue 51 on the trscker?
- 17:32:11 [npdoty]
- ack tl
- 17:32:12 [npdoty]
- ack ksmith
- 17:32:15 [aleecia]
- Also, issue-21 is "enable external audit of DNT" -- this is an implicit issue here too
- 17:32:20 [tl]
- johnsimpson, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Nov/0067.html
- 17:32:39 [bryan]
- ksmith: wondering what the debate is about... should 1st party return a header, and what should the header look like?
- 17:32:53 [bryan]
- bryan: I agree we should break this into smaller problems
- 17:32:57 [tl]
- the current response header includes 1p responses
- 17:33:16 [tl]
- this issue has been discussed, and a solution proposed
- 17:33:19 [carmenb]
- 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 [schunter]
- - Should 1st parties send responses at all (or be exempted)
- 17:33:27 [schunter]
- - What should a header look like?
- 17:33:27 [schunter]
- - Should the header be sent on all elements or just the non-cacheable subset.
- 17:33:30 [bryan]
- ... benefit from addressing just whether there should be a header
- 17:33:31 [bryan]
- +1
- 17:33:51 [efelten]
- efelten has joined #dnt
- 17:34:08 [bryan]
- matthias: good suggestion, narrow 51 re whether 1st party is exempt from sending the header
- 17:34:23 [aleecia]
- One of the few things we clearly agreed to was Yes, first parties must receive a header.
- 17:34:26 [fielding]
- 51 is only about 1st party
- 17:34:32 [Frankie]
- Frankie has joined #dnt
- 17:34:32 [bryan]
- ... (a) exemption (b) what should the header look like (c) what is effect on caches
- 17:34:34 [Zakim]
- -SueG
- 17:34:39 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:34:49 [Zakim]
- - +1.516.376.aarr
- 17:34:50 [aleecia]
- If we're echoing what we get, then first parties would also send a response
- 17:34:55 [bryan]
- ... impression that we have agreement on the need for a header to be sent
- 17:35:15 [bryan]
- roy: keep in mind that 99% of the web does not use tracking and this impacts them
- 17:35:20 [Frankie]
- Hi there no chance to dial in, conference is full
- 17:35:22 [aleecia]
- q+
- 17:35:24 [tl]
- +q
- 17:35:28 [chesterj1]
- chesterj1 has joined #dnt
- 17:35:33 [npdoty]
- non-compliant servers can continue to ignore the recommendation, right?
- 17:35:42 [tl]
- yes, yes they can
- 17:35:44 [aleecia]
- Nick: exactly my point
- 17:36:04 [aleecia]
- q-
- 17:36:14 [bryan]
- 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 [tl]
- -q
- 17:36:27 [schunter]
- - Response headers should only be sent if you received a request with DNT
- 17:36:31 [bryan]
- ... will refresh the issues and make a proposal
- 17:36:46 [schunter]
- - if you do not intend to comply with DNT, no need to send a DNT response header
- 17:36:50 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:37:20 [tl]
- +q
- 17:37:22 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:37:25 [dwainberg]
- q+
- 17:37:26 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:37:31 [ksmith]
- q+
- 17:37:33 [bryan]
- ...ISSUE-87: Should there be an option for the server to respond with "I don't know what my policy is"
- 17:37:51 [fielding]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/87
- 17:37:57 [Zakim]
- + +49.175.181.aaww
- 17:38:04 [bryan]
- tl: the answer should be no, there is no option to respond in that way
- 17:38:17 [johnsimpson]
- +q
- 17:38:19 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:38:20 [bryan]
- WileyS: it should be a definitive response
- 17:38:21 [Frankie]
- Thx nick
- 17:38:23 [npdoty]
- ack tl
- 17:38:25 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:38:25 [npdoty]
- ack WileyS
- 17:38:28 [npdoty]
- ack dwainberg
- 17:38:29 [johnsimpson]
- zakim, unmute me
- 17:38:29 [Zakim]
- johnsimpson should no longer be muted
- 17:38:38 [bryan]
- dwainberg: should allow for "don't know" option
- 17:39:05 [bryan]
- ... there is a difference between not responding because its not subject to DNT, or subject but not compliant
- 17:39:17 [tl]
- +q
- 17:39:17 [bryan]
- ... we should plan for where the server does not know the answer
- 17:39:21 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft.aa]
- 17:39:22 [aleecia]
- they could not reply
- 17:39:23 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:39:28 [tl]
- tl, WileyS : no, either you give a specific response or you're not compliant
- 17:39:31 [bryan]
- ... if they have to respond otherwise they may be wrong
- 17:39:39 [WileyS]
- 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 [bryan]
- ksmith: had the same question
- 17:40:04 [bryan]
- ... difference between I don't know, blank response, no response
- 17:40:22 [aleecia]
- to me "I don't know" means "please start an enforcement action against my company"
- 17:40:36 [tl]
- aleecia, +1
- 17:40:37 [WileyS]
- :-)
- 17:40:38 [bryan]
- dwainberg: if servers not subject send no response, or not compliant sends no response, there is ambiguity
- 17:40:41 [aleecia]
- So if that's what you all really want...
- 17:40:59 [tl]
- q?
- 17:41:00 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:41:06 [efelten]
- 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 [johnsimpson]
- -q
- 17:41:09 [schunter]
- ackn ksmith
- 17:41:17 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:41:18 [johnsimpson]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:41:19 [Zakim]
- johnsimpson should now be muted
- 17:41:20 [bryan]
- ... giving the server a don't know option makes resolves the ambiguity
- 17:41:36 [fielding]
- to clarify, all servers are "subject to DNT" in the current drafts
- 17:41:44 [tl]
- efelten, not as far as i can see. either case means "i can't promise that i'm in compliance"
- 17:41:58 [WileyS]
- -q
- 17:42:04 [bryan]
- 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 [ksmith]
- -q
- 17:42:38 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:42:43 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:42:43 [tl]
- -q
- 17:42:50 [tl]
- +q
- 17:42:50 [bryan]
- schunter: if we don't have agreement, this may be a "not urgently required" aspect, and may be dropped
- 17:42:51 [johnsimpson]
- +1 no reason to have don't know.
- 17:43:40 [bryan]
- ... 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 [johnsimpson]
- q?
- 17:44:15 [altaf]
- altaf has joined #dnt
- 17:45:22 [bryan]
- 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 [bryan]
- @@@: any lack of response should be "not in compliance" for whatever reason
- 17:45:59 [tl]
- act tl
- 17:46:06 [efelten]
- s/@@@/tl/
- 17:46:22 [aleecia]
- q?
- 17:46:26 [aleecia]
- ack WileyS
- 17:46:26 [fielding]
- tl, that's called a formal objection (if it were in the spec), not a block
- 17:46:28 [aleecia]
- ack tl
- 17:46:28 [tl]
- q-
- 17:46:28 [bryan]
- schunter: have enough input, propose to close the issue after David's input
- 17:46:30 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:46:40 [bryan]
- ...ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user?
- 17:46:49 [tl]
- fielding, formal objection is only once it's in a published spec
- 17:47:06 [bryan]
- ... is this issue a compliance or expression question?
- 17:47:15 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:47:22 [fielding]
- tl, right that's what the parens are for ;-)
- 17:47:27 [bryan]
- WileyS: already wrote a draft and sent it
- 17:47:28 [johnsimpson]
- q?
- 17:47:50 [bryan]
- tl: comfortable with the draft
- 17:48:13 [bryan]
- schunter: so the list will review the text and respond
- 17:48:27 [bryan]
- ...ISSUE-27: How should the "opt back in" mechanism be designed?
- 17:48:33 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:48:39 [fielding]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/27
- 17:49:05 [bryan]
- WileyS: technically discussed several options on site-specific exception
- 17:49:35 [bryan]
- ... the opt-in / site exception list, ...
- 17:49:57 [bryan]
- (having a hard time hearing, drop outs maybe in my connection, please drop notes in the IRC)
- 17:50:03 [dwainberg]
- same here
- 17:50:07 [dsriedel]
- confirm drop outs
- 17:50:08 [ksmith]
- same
- 17:50:11 [Lia]
- same
- 17:50:13 [johnsimpson]
- shane you are breaking up...
- 17:50:52 [bryan]
- (hooray for mobile networks)
- 17:50:54 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:51:29 [tl]
- +q
- 17:51:34 [bryan]
- schunter: any other opinions in the interim...
- 17:51:49 [WileyS]
- I can not call in via cell - "the call is full"
- 17:52:18 [bryan]
- ksmith: expressed concern that standards are good, but opt-in will need to be customized to the user experience
- 17:52:23 [sidstamm]
- WileyS, I'll drop off to make a slot for you (need to drop off in 5 min anyway)
- 17:52:39 [Zakim]
- -[Mozilla]
- 17:52:40 [amyc]
- +1 I don't believe we should dictate technological mechanism, could have best practices?
- 17:52:54 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:52:55 [bryan]
- ... there will be a need to do things differently so standardization may not support all the ways that interaction may need
- 17:52:56 [WileyS]
- Argh - that's a horrible solution - don't want anyone to leave for me
- 17:53:11 [aleecia]
- yay
- 17:53:25 [bryan]
- oops
- 17:53:30 [ksmith]
- cannot hear shane still
- 17:53:32 [bryan]
- still dropping out
- 17:53:32 [tedleung]
- even worse now.
- 17:53:42 [aleecia]
- Shane, can you type?
- 17:53:42 [sidstamm]
- WileyS, I have a standing conflict anyway, the slot is all yours
- 17:54:12 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:54:26 [Zakim]
- -fielding
- 17:54:31 [bryan]
- tl: any current language on this?
- 17:54:32 [ksmith]
- What I think Shane said is that we can have a policy definition, without a technical definition. If so, or even if not, I can think I can get behind that
- 17:54:47 [bryan]
- schunter: no
- 17:55:24 [Zakim]
- +fielding
- 17:55:27 [bryan]
- tl: need proposals first for discussion. there were some discussions in the F2F. but unless proposals are made, we should defer this
- 17:55:32 [WileyS]
- I will write a proposal - extension of our original submission to the W3C
- 17:55:40 [WileyS]
- I'll take the assignment
- 17:55:43 [Frankie_]
- Frankie_ has joined #dnt
- 17:56:23 [bryan]
- schunter: will send a call for proposals, and if there are no clear ideas we will wait for later proposals
- 17:56:32 [Zakim]
- - +1.978.944.aaqq
- 17:56:57 [hwest]
- O
- 17:56:57 [kimon]
- I'm not ok
- 17:57:03 [bryan]
- ... if no significant proposals this may slip to a later release
- 17:57:07 [hwest]
- I don't like that approach
- 17:57:07 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:57:21 [WileyS]
- -q
- 17:57:24 [hwest]
- I think it's a big problem not to have an opt back in in order to get sites to implement
- 17:57:29 [efelten]
- q+
- 17:57:34 [tl]
- hwest, can you write a proposal?
- 17:57:35 [tl]
- -q
- 17:57:53 [hwest]
- I can write up a short and non technical proposal
- 17:57:57 [bryan]
- kimon: websites need to know what the current status is, whether they can leverage user data or not (please correct if needed)
- 17:58:15 [hwest]
- +q
- 17:58:29 [bryan]
- ... can discuss with publishers on proposals
- 17:59:04 [Zakim]
- -npdoty
- 17:59:25 [johnsimpson]
- q?
- 17:59:31 [bryan]
- schunter: what mechanisms to use e.g. out of band, what objective is being sought, e.g. informal description is ok - it does not need to be technical
- 17:59:48 [efelten]
- q-
- 17:59:51 [hwest]
- -q
- 17:59:54 [bryan]
- hwest: will help with that
- 18:00:13 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:00:33 [bryan]
- schunter: any more on issue 27?
- 18:00:55 [bryan]
- .... next item is for Roy to make proposals
- 18:01:21 [bryan]
- fielding: no progress yet, plan is for progress in the next two weeks
- 18:01:40 [Zakim]
- -KevinT
- 18:01:46 [bryan]
- schunter: that's all for today, next call next week will be chaired by aleecia
- 18:01:55 [bryan]
- ... focusing on compliance doc
- 18:01:57 [Zakim]
- -Justin.a
- 18:02:03 [JC]
- JC has joined #DNT
- 18:02:37 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft.aaa]
- 18:02:43 [Zakim]
- - +1.202.744.aapp
- 18:02:44 [Zakim]
- - +385221aaoo
- 18:02:45 [ksmith]
- ksmith has left #DNT
- 18:02:46 [Zakim]
- -SungOk_You?
- 18:02:53 [Zakim]
- -carmenb
- 18:02:57 [Zakim]
- - +1.347.689.aauu
- 18:03:00 [bryan]
- bryan has left #dnt
- 18:03:02 [Zakim]
- - +1.646.825.aaaa
- 18:03:03 [Zakim]
- -efelten
- 18:03:07 [Zakim]
- - +1.813.366.aabb
- 18:03:09 [Zakim]
- -PederMagee
- 18:03:11 [Zakim]
- - +1.206.619.aatt
- 18:03:13 [Frank_]
- Frank_ has left #DNT
- 18:03:19 [Zakim]
- -alex
- 18:03:21 [Zakim]
- -bryan
- 18:03:23 [Zakim]
- -??P20
- 18:03:26 [Zakim]
- -aleecia
- 18:03:27 [Zakim]
- - +1.609.627.aamm
- 18:03:29 [Zakim]
- -johnsimpson
- 18:03:30 [johnsimpson]
- johnsimpson has left #dnt
- 18:03:31 [Zakim]
- - +3249434aajj
- 18:03:33 [Zakim]
- - +1.301.270.aaff
- 18:03:35 [Zakim]
- -dsriedel
- 18:03:37 [Zakim]
- -chuck
- 18:03:39 [Zakim]
- -tedleung
- 18:03:41 [Zakim]
- - +1.508.655.aass
- 18:03:43 [Zakim]
- -rvaneijk
- 18:03:45 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 18:03:46 [tedleung]
- tedleung has left #dnt
- 18:03:49 [Zakim]
- -fielding
- 18:03:51 [Zakim]
- -Justin
- 18:03:53 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft.a]
- 18:03:55 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft.aaa]
- 18:03:59 [Zakim]
- -tl
- 18:04:02 [Zakim]
- - +49.175.181.aaww
- 18:04:03 [Zakim]
- - +1.650.862.aaii
- 18:04:15 [adrianba]
- adrianba has left #dnt
- 18:10:11 [Zakim]
- -Joseph_Scheuhammer
- 18:12:26 [Zakim]
- -WileyS
- 18:21:50 [KevinT]
- KevinT has joined #dnt
- 18:23:56 [Zakim]
- -FrankG_BlueCava
- 18:25:49 [tl]
- trackbot, end meeting
- 18:25:49 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 18:25:49 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been aleecia, +1.646.825.aaaa, +1.813.366.aabb, WileyS, +1.202.835.aacc, efelten, +1.949.483.aadd, npdoty, +1.202.326.aaee, fielding,
- 18:25:50 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 18:25:50 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/30-dnt-minutes.html trackbot
- 18:25:51 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 18:25:51 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items
- 18:25:53 [Zakim]
- ... +1.301.270.aaff, +1.425.269.aagg, +1.646.654.aahh, +1.650.862.aaii, Justin, +3249434aajj, FrankG_BlueCava, +1.415.734.aakk, SueG, +1.425.214.aall, PederMagee, +1.609.627.aamm,