IRC log of dnt on 2012-05-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:32 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:58:32 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/16-dnt-irc
15:58:44 [npdoty]: trackbot, start meeting
15:58:46 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
15:58:48 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be
15:58:48 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:58:49 [trackbot]: Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:58:49 [trackbot]: Date: 16 May 2012
15:58:52 [alex]: Zakim, mute me
15:58:52 [Zakim]: sorry, alex, I don't know what conference this is
15:59:04 [npdoty]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:07 [Zakim]: T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has not yet started, npdoty
15:59:11 [Zakim]: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, dsinger, dsriedel, alex, efelten, npdoty, mischat, ifette, aclearwater, schunter, trackbot, hober, wseltzer, pde
15:59:37 [eberkower]: eberkower has joined #dnt
15:59:58 [justin_]: justin_ has joined #dnt
16:00:15 [hober-air]: hober-air has joined #dnt
16:00:30 [fielding]: fielding has joined #dnt
16:00:34 [Lia]: Lia has joined #dnt
16:00:37 [npdoty]: Zakim, this is 87225
16:00:56 [dsinger]: zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:56 [ifette]: zakim seems a bit baglogged...
16:01:26 [dsinger]: um, I skyped in and am not sure which call is mine, so I will probably be dumped
16:01:35 [hober-air]: Zakim, Apple has hober
16:01:43 [Zakim]: ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
16:01:51 [npdoty]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:52 [Zakim]: On the phone I see +1.408.674.aaaa, +1.609.981.aabb, ??P26, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.813.366.aadd, +1.202.835.aaee, +1.646.654.aaff, +49.721.91.aagg, ??P13, +1.202.530.aahh,
16:01:56 [Zakim]: ... +1.510.859.aaii, +1.617.733.aajj, [Google]
16:01:57 [Zakim]: + +1.202.637.aakk
16:02:03 [Zakim]: +[Apple]
16:02:06 [sidstamm]: sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:02:07 [ifette]: Zakim, google has ifette
16:02:07 [dsriedel]: zakim, aagg is dsriedel
16:02:13 [Zakim]: + +1.714.852.aall
16:02:14 [hober-air]: Zakim, Apple has hober
16:02:15 [BrendanIAB]: BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
16:02:17 [Zakim]: + +1.202.587.aamm
16:02:19 [efelten]: Zakim, aacc is me
16:02:19 [npdoty]: Zakim, aaii is npdoty
16:02:30 [Zakim]: +hober; got it
16:02:31 [npdoty]: Present+ Aleecia
16:02:31 [Zakim]: On the phone I see +1.408.674.aaaa, +1.609.981.aabb, ??P26, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.813.366.aadd, +1.202.835.aaee, +1.646.654.aaff, +49.721.91.aagg, ??P13, +1.202.530.aahh,
16:02:33 [Chris_PedigoOPA]: Chris_PedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:02:36 [Zakim]: ... +1.510.859.aaii, +1.617.733.aajj, [Google], +1.202.637.aakk, [Apple], +1.714.852.aall, +1.202.587.aamm
16:02:38 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:02:39 [tl]: tl has joined #dnt
16:02:42 [npdoty]: scribenick: ifette
16:02:42 [Zakim]: + +1.703.265.aann
16:02:44 [schunter]: Zakim, P13 is schunter
16:02:48 [Zakim]: +ifette; got it
16:02:51 [Zakim]: +dsriedel; got it
16:02:51 [fielding]: Zakim, aall is fielding
16:02:52 [Zakim]: hober was already listed in [Apple], hober-air
16:02:55 [dsriedel]: zakim, mute me
16:02:57 [Zakim]: -??P13
16:02:57 [hefferjr]: hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:02:59 [Zakim]: +efelten; got it
16:03:00 [Zakim]: +npdoty; got it
16:03:00 [ifette]: TOPIC: agenda bashing
16:03:12 [justin_]: zakim, aakk is justin_
16:03:14 [Zakim]: sorry, schunter, I do not recognize a party named 'P13'
16:03:16 [ifette]: Matthias: no comments
16:03:16 [Zakim]: +fielding; got it
16:03:17 [sidstamm]: zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
16:03:18 [Zakim]: dsriedel should now be muted
16:03:20 [Zakim]: +??P43
16:03:23 [ifette]: TOPIC: Review of overdue actions
16:03:26 [Zakim]: +[Mozilla]
16:03:29 [Zakim]: +justin_; got it
16:03:30 [Zakim]: +sidstamm; got it
16:03:31 [ifette]: Matthias: reviewing actions
16:03:34 [Zakim]: + +1.202.326.aaoo
16:03:40 [Lia]: Zakim, aamm is me
16:03:40 [Zakim]: +Lia; got it
16:03:41 [ifette]: ... first is on ROY
16:03:45 [ifette]: ACTION-131?
16:03:45 [trackbot]: ACTION-131 -- Roy Fielding to sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource -- due 2012-05-12 -- OPEN
16:03:45 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/131
16:03:52 [pmagee]: pmagee has joined #dnt
16:04:01 [aclearwater]: Zakim, aajj is aclearwater
16:04:01 [Zakim]: +aclearwater; got it
16:04:04 [ifette]: roy: holding pending design of tracking status resource
16:04:09 [eberkower]: eberkower has joined #dnt
16:04:16 [ifette]: matthias: think it was to explain the flow / interaction diagram / how it should work in practice
16:04:23 [ifette]: roy: takes a while, want to have some solution that works for people first
16:04:27 [Zakim]: + +1.408.223.aapp
16:04:37 [ifette]: ACTION-131 due 2012-06-01
16:04:37 [trackbot]: ACTION-131 Sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource due date now 2012-06-01
16:04:44 [npdoty]: Zakim, aaaa is aleecia
16:04:44 [Zakim]: +aleecia; got it
16:04:47 [ifette]: ACTION-139?
16:04:47 [trackbot]: ACTION-139 -- Thomas Lowenthal to improve wording of 3.9 "Meaningful Interaction" to avoid "affirmatively clicking" and make sure that "clicking" is replaced with something more general. -- due 2012-05-14 -- OPEN
16:04:47 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/139
16:04:53 [Zakim]: + +1.202.403.aaqq
16:04:56 [JC]: JC has joined #DNT
16:04:58 [Zakim]: +??P48
16:04:59 [ifette]: matthias: and?
16:05:03 [ifette]: tom: thought we dropped it
16:05:13 [dsinger]: zakim, ??P48 is me
16:05:13 [Zakim]: +dsinger; got it
16:05:28 [ifette]: matthias: will check minutes
16:05:35 [Chris_PedigoOPA]: Zakim, aaqq is Chris_PedigoOPA
16:05:35 [Zakim]: +Chris_PedigoOPA; got it
16:05:36 [efelten]: Zakim, aaoo is pmagee
16:05:36 [Zakim]: +pmagee; got it
16:05:37 [ifette]: tom: i'm not going to do it, if someone else wants it they can
16:05:43 [ifette]: npdoty: have we removed clicking from draft?
16:05:45 [ifette]: tom: dont know
16:05:55 [dsinger]: "intentional interaction" was something like what we discussed
16:06:00 [ifette]: matthias: nick, can you check status of action and close if appropriate?
16:06:19 [ifette]: npdoty: clicking is still on draft
16:06:29 [ifette]: ... we agreed clicking would not be enough, but action seems still open as-is
16:06:30 [bilcorry]: bilcorry has joined #dnt
16:06:36 [ifette]: tom: previously we talked about affirmatively clicking
16:06:40 [bilcorry]: Zakim, mute me
16:06:40 [Zakim]: sorry, bilcorry, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:06:43 [npdoty]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#meaningful-interaction
16:06:50 [Zakim]: + +1.202.326.aarr
16:06:51 [cOlsen]: cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:06:54 [ifette]: ... didn't think you could determine affirmative clicking, but could determine if they clicked on something that meant they were trying to interact with you
16:06:56 [justin_]: +q
16:07:03 [ifette]: npdoty: might not click at all, might have button on phone / touch / other interactions
16:07:05 [enewland]: enewland has joined #dnt
16:07:14 [ifette]: tom: did david volunteer to add touch?
16:07:16 [ifette]: matthias: moving on
16:07:21 [ifette]: ... will call for volunteers for the aciton
16:07:23 [kj]: kj has joined #dnt
16:07:26 [ifette]: ... if no one volunteers, text stays as is
16:07:33 [ifette]: ACTION-150?
16:07:33 [trackbot]: ACTION-150 -- Ninja Marnau to analyse EU legal implications of exceptions to (thissite, *) -- due 2012-05-04 -- OPEN
16:07:33 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/150
16:07:42 [ifette]: matthias: noting ninja is not on call
16:07:58 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:08:01 [ifette]: ... third time this action came u
16:08:07 [ifette]: ACTION-155?
16:08:07 [trackbot]: ACTION-155 -- Aleecia McDonald to update slide 6 to note "aspirational timeline" -- due 2012-05-09 -- OPEN
16:08:07 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/155
16:08:10 [justin_]: npdoty, the compliance spec says clicking OR OTHERWISE AFFIRMATIVELY ENGAGING, fwiw
16:08:16 [pde]: I'm not on the call, but I can give an update on Action-160
16:08:25 [ifette]: aleecia: my deadline turned out to be aspirational as well
16:08:33 [ifette]: ACTION-155 due 2012-05-23
16:08:33 [trackbot]: ACTION-155 Update slide 6 to note "aspirational timeline" due date now 2012-05-23
16:08:38 [Chris_IAB]: Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:08:44 [Zakim]: + +1.646.666.aass
16:08:45 [Marc]: Marc has joined #dnt
16:08:49 [ifette]: ACTION-159?
16:08:50 [trackbot]: ACTION-159 -- David Singer to draft shorter language to describe conditions for consent (with npdoty) -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:08:50 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/159
16:08:55 [aleecia]: aleecia has joined #dnt
16:08:58 [npdoty]: justin, good point, but then we are still using "affirmatively"
16:08:59 [Chapell]: Chapell has joined #DNT
16:09:04 [ifette]: Ted: at apple covering for dave who is traveling
16:09:11 [npdoty]: regrets+ dsinger
16:09:12 [ifette]: ... believe he's waiting on update to compliance document to make relevant changes
16:09:13 [aleecia]: (sorry to be joining IRC late)
16:09:17 [dsinger]: zakim, unmute me
16:09:17 [Zakim]: dsinger was not muted, dsinger
16:09:28 [npdoty]: regrets- dsinger
16:09:28 [justin_]: npdoty, yes, but it makes sense where we moved it.
16:09:28 [pde]: (Basically, A deadline of Wed next week is probably realistic for progress on 160)
16:09:33 [ifette]: dsinger: actually, believe this action is covered by shane's proposed language
16:09:35 [npdoty]: present+ dsinger
16:09:36 [ifette]: ... said on mailing list
16:09:39 [ifette]: ... so does nick
16:09:46 [aleecia]: regrets+ jchester
16:09:48 [Zakim]: +??P54
16:09:50 [ifette]: Close action-159
16:09:50 [trackbot]: ACTION-159 Draft shorter language to describe conditions for consent (with npdoty) closed
16:09:57 [tl]: Zakim, who is on the call?
16:09:57 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, +1.609.981.aabb, ??P26, efelten, +1.813.366.aadd, +1.202.835.aaee, +1.646.654.aaff, dsriedel (muted), +1.202.530.aahh, npdoty, aclearwater, [Google],
16:09:58 [ifette]: ACTION-160?
16:09:59 [trackbot]: ACTION-160 -- Peter Eckersley to work with Shane on common ground on unlinkability normative/non-normative text -- due 2012-04-24 -- OPEN
16:09:59 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/160
16:10:01 [Zakim]: ... justin_, [Apple], fielding, Lia, +1.703.265.aann, ??P43, [Mozilla], pmagee, +1.408.223.aapp, Chris_PedigoOPA, dsinger, +1.202.326.aarr, [Microsoft], +1.646.666.aass, ??P54
16:10:01 [Zakim]: [Google] has ifette
16:10:01 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:10:01 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:10:02 [hober-air]: s/Ted/hober/
16:10:05 [justin_]: npdoty, affirmatively clicking is clearly redundant, affirmatively engaging is only arguably redundant ;)
16:10:19 [fielding]: shane sent regrets
16:10:22 [Chris_PedigoOPA]: I think Shane is traveling today
16:10:23 [npdoty]: regrets+ wileys
16:10:24 [Chris_IAB]: there were problems joining the call
16:10:25 [ifette]: tom: he's not on call, says update of next week is realistic for progress
16:10:30 [ifette]: ACTION-160 due 2012-05-23
16:10:31 [trackbot]: ACTION-160 Work with Shane on common ground on unlinkability normative/non-normative text due date now 2012-05-23
16:10:34 [ifette]: ACTION-163?
16:10:34 [trackbot]: ACTION-163 -- Roy Fielding to explain confusion or an alternative to text explaining the interaction with existing user privacy controls -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
16:10:34 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/163
16:10:42 [Zakim]: + +1.202.346.aatt
16:10:44 [ifette]: roy: will drop this
16:10:50 [ifette]: ... think i don't even understand what i was going to change
16:10:54 [ifette]: Close ACTION-163
16:10:54 [trackbot]: ACTION-163 Explain confusion or an alternative to text explaining the interaction with existing user privacy controls closed
16:10:58 [ifette]: ACTION-166?
16:10:58 [trackbot]: ACTION-166 -- Heather West to draft updated text on definitions of "collection" and similar terms "Data collection, retention, use, and sharing" (with fielding) -- due 2012-05-11 -- OPEN
16:10:58 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/166
16:11:04 [tl]: Zakim, aabb is me
16:11:04 [Zakim]: +tl; got it
16:11:09 [tl]: Zakim, mute me.
16:11:09 [Zakim]: tl should now be muted
16:11:13 [ifette]: heather: looking at this, can't remember what end goal of the action was
16:11:19 [ifette]: ... don't think the definitions are particularly problematic
16:11:23 [ifette]: ... does anyone remember?
16:11:29 [tl]: Zakim, unmute me.
16:11:29 [Zakim]: tl should no longer be muted
16:11:30 [ifette]: roy: definition of collection is defined in terms of receipt
16:11:35 [ifette]: ... so any data you receive is collected
16:11:36 [bilcorry]: Zakim, aapp is me
16:11:36 [Zakim]: +bilcorry; got it
16:11:42 [Zakim]: +justin_.a
16:11:46 [bilcorry]: Zakim, mute me
16:11:46 [Zakim]: bilcorry should now be muted
16:11:50 [ifette]: ... whereas elsewhere in the world, collection is process of retaining data for purpose of organizing or using it
16:11:57 [ifette]: ... hate having two different conversations
16:11:58 [enewland]: zakim, +justin_.a is enewland
16:11:58 [Zakim]: sorry, enewland, I do not recognize a party named '+justin_.a'
16:12:03 [aleecia]: regrets+ rob van ejik
16:12:06 [enewland]: zakim, justin_.a is enewland
16:12:06 [Zakim]: +enewland; got it
16:12:08 [ifette]: ACTION-166: roy suggests collection is process of retaining data for purpose of organizing or using it
16:12:08 [trackbot]: ACTION-166 Draft updated text on definitions of "collection" and similar terms "Data collection, retention, use, and sharing" (with fielding) notes added
16:12:09 [vincent_]: vincent_ has joined #dnt
16:12:11 [npdoty]: Zakim, aatt is hwest
16:12:11 [Zakim]: +hwest; got it
16:12:11 [ifette]: ACTION-166 on fielding
16:12:15 [hwest]: hwest has joined #dnt
16:12:19 [ifette]: ACTION-170?
16:12:19 [trackbot]: ACTION-170 -- Heather West to provide an alternative approach to well-known URI for resources that are used in both first-party and third-party contexts without changing the resource URI -- due 2012-05-11 -- OPEN
16:12:19 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/170
16:12:29 [ifette]: hwest: in progress, need more time
16:12:35 [Zakim]: +Cyril_Concolato
16:12:36 [ifette]: ACTION-170 due 2012-05-23
16:12:36 [trackbot]: ACTION-170 Provide an alternative approach to well-known URI for resources that are used in both first-party and third-party contexts without changing the resource URI due date now 2012-05-23
16:12:45 [ifette]: matthias; i probably have some input here as well
16:12:51 [ifette]: ... will email
16:12:53 [ifette]: ACTION-174?
16:12:53 [trackbot]: ACTION-174 -- Ninja Marnau to write up implication of origin/* exceptions in EU context -- due 2012-05-04 -- OPEN
16:12:53 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/174
16:12:58 [ifette]: Matthias: ninja is not here
16:13:01 [ifette]: ACTION-175?
16:13:01 [trackbot]: ACTION-175 -- Vincent Toubiana to draft API method for sites to remove, a la removeTrackingException() -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:13:01 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/175
16:13:02 [tl]: Zakim, mute me.
16:13:02 [Zakim]: tl should now be muted
16:13:09 [ifette]: vincent: i'm here
16:13:20 [ifette]: ... sent a draft yesterday and getting feedback from nick
16:13:25 [ifette]: ... tried to integrate feedback
16:13:34 [npdoty]: I think Ninja's two actions are duplicates of one another
16:13:36 [ifette]: ... question is whereas we should use the API only from the website that is requesting the exception
16:13:41 [ifette]: ... or if we should consider the user agent
16:13:46 [ifette]: ... proposed two APIs
16:13:51 [ifette]: ... one used to mange exception from user agent
16:13:54 [ifette]: ... removed the third one
16:13:56 [ifette]: ... just one API
16:14:02 [ifette]: ... should move to pending review
16:14:07 [ifette]: matthias: ok, pending review
16:14:10 [ifette]: ACTION-176?
16:14:10 [trackbot]: ACTION-176 -- David Singer to update site-specific exceptions text to note that embedded third-party javascript may make the call rather than the first party (even though it probably shouldn't do so without working it out with the publisher) -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:14:10 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/176
16:14:25 [ifette]: dsinger: provided an email
16:14:25 [vincent_]: zakim, Cyril_Concolato is really vincent_
16:14:25 [Zakim]: +vincent_; got it
16:14:42 [ifette]: ... when the origin of the script is not the same of the top level browsing context, suggest interpreting this as a third party exception request
16:14:53 [ifette]: ... can either go that way, or document that such cross-site requests are not permitted
16:14:59 [ifette]: ... might prefer a separate call for adding a third party event
16:15:03 [ksmith]: ksmith has joined #DNT
16:15:07 [tl]: Zakim, unmute me.
16:15:07 [Zakim]: tl should no longer be muted
16:15:09 [tl]: +q
16:15:09 [ifette]: ... can also notice that origins don't match
16:15:14 [ifette]: ... no one else has commented
16:15:16 [ifette]: q+
16:15:29 [ifette]: matthias: resend email and link email to action
16:15:29 [npdoty]: didn't I comment?
16:15:33 [npdoty]: q?
16:15:38 [ifette]: ... put action in the email subject/body
16:15:39 [ifette]: q-
16:15:49 [ifette]: ACTION-178?
16:15:49 [trackbot]: ACTION-178 -- Thomas Lowenthal to talk with Shane about an updated compliance proposal -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:15:49 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/178
16:15:50 [justin_]: q-
16:15:56 [schunter]: Q?
16:16:26 [ifette]: tom: doesn't your proposal have a problem with included scripts like jquery (presumably referring back to ACTION-176)
16:16:33 [ifette]: ... running in the context of the site
16:16:42 [ifette]: dsinger: if you load script libraries from someone else, yes
16:16:53 [ifette]: ... if we allow a script loaded from any site to make request on behalf of party, that seems dangerous
16:17:01 [ifette]: tom: don't see an obvious solution
16:17:01 [fielding]: why would an origin that needed to know the DNT status do that via a js loaded from some other domain?
16:17:10 [ifette]: dsinger: should write restriction and have a separate api
16:17:15 [ifette]: ACTION-178?
16:17:15 [trackbot]: ACTION-178 -- Thomas Lowenthal to talk with Shane about an updated compliance proposal -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:17:15 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/178
16:17:21 [tl]: fielding: Because they want to use jquery.
16:17:40 [ifette]: matthias: what should i do with action-176?
16:17:46 [ifette]: dsinger: pending review?
16:17:52 [ifette]: ... we are reviewing what i proposed
16:17:55 [ifette]: matthias: ok, p-r
16:18:03 [tl]: Zakim, mute me.
16:18:03 [Zakim]: tl should now be muted
16:18:10 [ifette]: ACTION-178?
16:18:10 [trackbot]: ACTION-178 -- Thomas Lowenthal to talk with Shane about an updated compliance proposal -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:18:10 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/178
16:18:12 [Zakim]: + +385221aauu
16:18:22 [schunter]: q?
16:18:25 [tl]: Zakim, unmute me.
16:18:25 [Zakim]: tl should no longer be muted
16:18:25 [schunter]: ack tl
16:18:37 [ksmith]: aauu is ksmith
16:18:39 [ifette]: tom: shane isn't here and we haven't spoken
16:18:44 [npdoty]: Zakim, aauu is ksmith
16:18:44 [Zakim]: +ksmith; got it
16:18:44 [ifette]: matthias; so...?
16:18:50 [ifette]: tom: keep action
16:19:09 [npdoty]: tl, do we have an update on roughly when this would happen?
16:19:10 [Joanne]: Joanne has joined #DNT
16:19:20 [ifette]: ... whatever happens on tracker is unlikely to affect my behaviour
16:19:25 [ifette]: matthias: so i should use other means?
16:19:30 [tl]: Zakim, mute me.
16:19:30 [Zakim]: tl should now be muted
16:19:31 [ifette]: ... will leave it
16:19:37 [tl]: npdoty: Sadly, no.
16:19:39 [ifette]: ACTION-179?
16:19:39 [trackbot]: ACTION-179 -- Shane Wiley to draft section on seriousness of the request for a user-granted exception (with ninja) -- due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN
16:19:39 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/179
16:19:43 [ifette]: shane isn't here
16:19:48 [ifette]: nor is ninja
16:20:05 [ifette]: matthias: will send shane a reminder, and drop action soon
16:20:07 [ifette]: ACTION-181?
16:20:07 [trackbot]: ACTION-181 -- David Singer to fix the language in the spec where necessary to reflect "permitted uses" and "user-granted exceptions" -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:20:07 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/181
16:20:14 [Zakim]: + +1.215.286.aavv
16:20:27 [ifette]: dsinger: think it's done a few hours ago
16:20:31 [ifette]: ... p-r or closed
16:20:38 [Chapell]: zakim #aaff = chapell
16:20:47 [ifette]: Close ACTION-181
16:20:47 [trackbot]: ACTION-181 Fix the language in the spec where necessary to reflect "permitted uses" and "user-granted exceptions" closed
16:20:55 [ifette]: ACTION-182?
16:20:55 [trackbot]: ACTION-182 -- David Singer to do a dependency check (TPE-Compliance) -- due 2012-06-15 -- OPEN
16:20:55 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/182
16:21:20 [ifette]: dsinger: think this is a dupe of 176
16:21:22 [npdoty]: action-183?
16:21:22 [trackbot]: ACTION-183 -- David Singer to double check API lannguage -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:21:22 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/183
16:21:23 [ifette]: matthias: ok
16:21:25 [Zakim]: + +1.813.366.aaww
16:21:28 [jlenhart]: jlenhart has joined #dnt
16:21:30 [ifette]: ACTION-183: a duplicate of 176
16:21:30 [trackbot]: ACTION-183 Double check API lannguage notes added
16:22:26 [ifette]: ACTION-184?
16:22:27 [trackbot]: ACTION-184 -- Aleecia McDonald to move issue-14 text from Compliance to Global Considerations document -- due 2012-05-09 -- OPEN
16:22:27 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/184
16:22:36 [ifette]: ACTION-184 due 2012-05-23
16:22:36 [trackbot]: ACTION-184 Move issue-14 text from Compliance to Global Considerations document due date now 2012-05-23
16:22:43 [ifette]: ACTION-185?
16:22:43 [trackbot]: ACTION-185 -- Kevin Smith to draft specific field proposal for optional auditors -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:22:43 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/185
16:22:54 [tl]: Zakim, unmute me
16:22:54 [Zakim]: tl should no longer be muted
16:22:54 [johnsimpson]: johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:22:58 [schunter]: q?
16:23:01 [ifette]: tom: believe this is now on kevin
16:23:03 [npdoty]: ack ksmith
16:23:13 [ifette]: ksmith: out for a week and a half, will look intot his
16:23:17 [ifette]: ACTION-185 on kevin
16:23:19 [npdoty]: q+
16:23:43 [ifette]: npdoty: was this kevin trilly?
16:23:45 [ifette]: ... not smith?
16:23:50 [ifette]: tom: believe so
16:23:55 [ifette]: npdoty: seems to make more sense
16:23:56 [aleecia]: …that was almost certainly my fault
16:23:57 [ifette]: ksmith: relieved
16:23:58 [Zakim]: + +1.310.392.aaxx
16:24:14 [aleecia]: I probably grabbed the wrong Kevin while re-assigning quickly on the call last week. Sorry, Kevins.
16:24:22 [ifette]: matthias: done
16:24:30 [ifette]: ACTION-185?
16:24:30 [trackbot]: ACTION-185 -- Kevin Trilli to draft specific field proposal for optional auditors -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:24:30 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/185
16:24:37 [johnsimpson]: zakim, aaxx is johnsimpson
16:24:37 [Zakim]: +johnsimpson; got it
16:24:38 [ifette]: ACTION-187?
16:24:38 [trackbot]: ACTION-187 -- Thomas Lowenthal to write text for ISSUE-99 around identity providers as first or third parties, DUE May 5 2012 -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN
16:24:38 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/187
16:24:51 [ifette]: tom: have not done this
16:24:54 [npdoty]: hwest and jchester offered to review
16:24:58 [ifette]: ... if someone else would like to take this over, would strongly recommend
16:25:05 [ifette]: ... in particular, someone who believes current text is insufficient
16:25:08 [ifette]: ... would be preferable
16:25:17 [ifette]: ... otherwise, if we have no text, definition we have is what we have, interaction based
16:25:20 [ifette]: ... i can live with that
16:25:23 [ifette]: q+
16:25:26 [npdoty]: q-
16:25:29 [npdoty]: q?
16:25:44 [npdoty]: ack ifette
16:25:45 [schunter]: q?
16:25:52 [aleecia]: thank you, Ian
16:25:54 [ifette]: ifette: i'll take 187
16:26:02 [ifette]: ACTION-187 due 2012-05-23
16:26:02 [trackbot]: ACTION-187 Write text for ISSUE-99 around identity providers as first or third parties, DUE May 5 2012 due date now 2012-05-23
16:26:04 [npdoty]: regrets+ rigo
16:26:07 [aleecia]: q?
16:26:11 [npdoty]: regrets+ jmayer
16:26:12 [ifette]: Matthias: concludes review of overdue actions
16:26:19 [ifette]: ... did I overlook anything, or other action-related homework?
16:26:46 [ifette]: TOPIC: more feedback on responses from sites, tom and roy have a drafted chapter in spec
16:26:49 [ksmith]: ksmith has joined #DNT
16:26:56 [ifette]: Matthias: received some comments from draft spe
16:27:05 [ifette]: ... don't have agreement that this is a perfect solution
16:27:08 [ifette]: ... want more comments/feedback
16:27:13 [ifette]: ... want to fine-tune and enable roy/tom to improve
16:27:32 [ifette]: ... specific use cases not satisfied, undesirable characteristics, more constructive and concrete the better
16:27:33 [ifette]: q+
16:27:39 [tl]: Zakim, unmute me
16:27:39 [Zakim]: tl was not muted, tl
16:27:40 [schunter]: q?
16:27:55 [ifette]: tom: david expressed concern around anonymous callers
16:27:58 [hefferjr]: 813-366-aaww is hefferjr (Nielsen, backstopping Alex Deliyannis)
16:28:01 [ifette]: ... can we deal with that?
16:28:07 [npdoty]: Zakim, aadd is hefferjr
16:28:07 [Zakim]: +hefferjr; got it
16:28:09 [schunter]: Zakim, who is on the phone
16:28:09 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is on the phone', schunter
16:28:10 [ifette]: matthias: good point
16:28:16 [Chapell]: chapell is 646
16:28:17 [rvaneijk]: rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:28:22 [eberkower]: 646 is eberkower
16:28:23 [Chapell]: trying to find the instructions
16:28:31 [ifette]: aaff is chapell
16:28:33 [schunter]: Zakim, P26 is schunter
16:28:33 [Zakim]: sorry, schunter, I do not recognize a party named 'P26'
16:28:34 [BrendanIAB]: BrendanIAB - am I associated with a phone number at this time?
16:28:36 [ifette]: crap
16:28:38 [eberkower]: eberkower = 646 654
16:28:44 [npdoty]: Zakim, aaff is chapell
16:28:44 [Zakim]: +chapell; got it
16:28:49 [schunter]: Zakim, ??P26 is schunter
16:28:49 [Zakim]: +schunter; got it
16:28:51 [ifette]: aaff is really eberkower
16:28:56 [alex]: Zakim, aadd is alex
16:28:56 [Zakim]: sorry, alex, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
16:28:57 [ifette]: chapell is really eberkower
16:28:58 [justin_]: zakim, aass is eberkower
16:28:58 [Zakim]: +eberkower; got it
16:28:59 [aleecia]: zakim, who is on the call?
16:29:00 [Zakim]: + +1.316.514.aayy
16:29:00 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, tl, schunter, efelten, hefferjr, +1.202.835.aaee, chapell, dsriedel (muted), +1.202.530.aahh, npdoty, aclearwater, [Google], justin_, [Apple], fielding,
16:29:00 [Zakim]: ... Lia, +1.703.265.aann, ??P43, [Mozilla], pmagee, bilcorry (muted), Chris_PedigoOPA, dsinger, +1.202.326.aarr, [Microsoft], eberkower, ??P54, hwest, enewland, vincent_, ksmith,
16:29:00 [Zakim]: ... +1.215.286.aavv, +1.813.366.aaww, johnsimpson, +1.316.514.aayy (muted)
16:29:01 [Zakim]: [Google] has ifette
16:29:03 [npdoty]: Zakim, aass is chapell
16:29:03 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:29:06 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:29:07 [Zakim]: sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aass'
16:29:15 [jlenhart]: +jlenhart 215.286 [Comcast]
16:29:17 [rvaneijk]: zakin, aayy is me
16:29:26 [npdoty]: Zakim, aavv is jlenhart
16:29:26 [Zakim]: +jlenhart; got it
16:29:26 [tl]: The syntax when zakim says that 123-4567-xxxx is on the phone, and you are 123-4567, is to say "Zakim, xxxx is name"
16:29:27 [efelten]: Zakim, aayy is rvaneijk
16:29:27 [Zakim]: - +1.202.530.aahh
16:29:27 [Zakim]: +rvaneijk; got it
16:29:29 [Marc]: 835 is Marc
16:29:32 [ifette]: zakim, aavv is jlenhart
16:29:32 [Zakim]: sorry, ifette, I do not recognize a party named 'aavv'
16:29:42 [Zakim]: -??P43
16:29:45 [Chris_IAB]: Chris Mejia of the IAB via the Skype
16:29:54 [rvaneijk]: zakim, unmute me
16:29:54 [Zakim]: rvaneijk was not muted, rvaneijk
16:29:55 [cOlsen]: 326 is cOlsen
16:30:02 [tl]: zakim, mute me
16:30:02 [Zakim]: tl should now be muted
16:30:07 [ifette]: 326 or 316?
16:30:10 [aleecia]: And I cannot hear people
16:30:12 [schunter]: Zakim, who is on the call?
16:30:12 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, tl (muted), schunter, efelten, hefferjr, +1.202.835.aaee, chapell, dsriedel (muted), npdoty, aclearwater, [Google], justin_, [Apple], fielding, Lia,
16:30:13 [justin_]: zakim, aarr is cOlsen
16:30:13 [tl]: zakim, who is making noise?
16:30:16 [Zakim]: ... +1.703.265.aann, [Mozilla], pmagee, bilcorry (muted), Chris_PedigoOPA, dsinger, +1.202.326.aarr, [Microsoft], eberkower, ??P54, hwest, enewland, vincent_, ksmith, jlenhart,
16:30:16 [Zakim]: ... +1.813.366.aaww, johnsimpson, rvaneijk
16:30:16 [Zakim]: [Google] has ifette
16:30:16 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:30:16 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:30:16 [Chris_IAB]: audio has degraded
16:30:16 [johnsimpson]: bad audio
16:30:17 [Zakim]: +cOlsen; got it
16:30:21 [efelten]: Zakim aarr is cOlsen
16:30:25 [rvaneijk]: no audio
16:30:25 [Zakim]: tl, listening for 12 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:30:29 [Zakim]: +??P5
16:30:30 [alex]: Zakim, mute me
16:30:30 [hwest]: Audio is gone
16:30:31 [Zakim]: sorry, alex, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:30:33 [efelten]: no audio
16:30:36 [aleecia]: sort of
16:30:38 [rvaneijk]: yes matthias
16:30:41 [Chris_IAB]: lots of static on the line
16:30:44 [johnsimpson]: zakim, mute me
16:30:44 [Zakim]: johnsimpson should now be muted
16:30:47 [hefferjr]: 813-366-aadd is alex
16:30:48 [alex]: Zakim, aadd is alex
16:30:48 [Zakim]: sorry, alex, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
16:30:48 [efelten]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:30:49 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, tl (muted), schunter, efelten, hefferjr, +1.202.835.aaee, chapell, dsriedel (muted), npdoty, aclearwater, [Google], justin_, [Apple], fielding, Lia,
16:30:49 [Zakim]: ... +1.703.265.aann, [Mozilla], pmagee, bilcorry (muted), Chris_PedigoOPA, dsinger, cOlsen, [Microsoft], eberkower, ??P54, hwest, enewland, vincent_, ksmith, jlenhart,
16:30:49 [Zakim]: ... +1.813.366.aaww, johnsimpson (muted), rvaneijk, ??P5
16:30:49 [Zakim]: [Google] has ifette
16:30:51 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:30:53 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:30:57 [alex]: Zakim, alex is aadd
16:30:57 [Zakim]: sorry, alex, I do not recognize a party named 'alex'
16:30:57 [tl]: zakim, unmute me
16:30:58 [Zakim]: tl should no longer be muted
16:31:08 [Chris_IAB]: Brendan from the IAB
16:31:11 [hefferjr]: 813-366-aaww is hefferjr
16:31:21 [schunter]: Zakim, aaee is BrendanIAB
16:31:21 [Zakim]: +BrendanIAB; got it
16:31:23 [ifette]: zakim, aaww is hefferj
16:31:27 [efelten]: Zakim, aaww is hefferjw
16:31:27 [Zakim]: +hefferjw; got it
16:31:36 [aleecia]: zakim, +??P5 is brendan
16:31:36 [Zakim]: sorry, aleecia, I do not recognize a party named '+??P5'
16:31:39 [ifette]: that would be p5
16:31:44 [npdoty]: Zakim, ??P5 is BrendanIAB
16:31:44 [Zakim]: +BrendanIAB; got it
16:31:48 [aleecia]: thanks
16:31:51 [ifette]: zakim, who is making noise?
16:31:51 [johnsimpson]: lots of staic
16:32:02 [Zakim]: ifette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: hefferjw (69%), BrendanIAB (37%), +1.703.265.aann (27%)
16:32:06 [ifette]: zakim, aann is wilson
16:32:06 [Zakim]: +wilson; got it
16:32:09 [schunter]: Zakim, aann is Jeff Olson
16:32:09 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'aann is Jeff Olson', schunter
16:32:14 [tl]: zakim, mute me
16:32:15 [Zakim]: tl should now be muted
16:32:18 [schunter]: Zakim, aann is Nielsen
16:32:18 [Zakim]: sorry, schunter, I do not recognize a party named 'aann'
16:32:23 [efelten]: Zakim, aaww is [Nielsen]
16:32:23 [Zakim]: sorry, efelten, I do not recognize a party named 'aaww'
16:32:34 [alex]: Zakim, aaww is alex
16:32:34 [Zakim]: sorry, alex, I do not recognize a party named 'aaww'
16:32:37 [dsinger]: zakim, mute hefferjr
16:32:37 [Zakim]: hefferjr should now be muted
16:32:38 [schunter]: Zakim, who is on the call?
16:32:38 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, tl (muted), schunter, efelten, hefferjr (muted), BrendanIAB, chapell, dsriedel (muted), npdoty, aclearwater, [Google], justin_, [Apple], fielding, Lia,
16:32:38 [Zakim]: ... wilson, [Mozilla], pmagee, bilcorry (muted), Chris_PedigoOPA, dsinger, cOlsen, [Microsoft], eberkower, ??P54, hwest, enewland, vincent_, ksmith, jlenhart, hefferjw, johnsimpson
16:32:38 [Zakim]: ... (muted), rvaneijk, BrendanIAB.a
16:32:38 [Zakim]: [Google] has ifette
16:32:38 [efelten]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:32:40 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:32:42 [aleecia]: We will get faster at this, I'm sure.
16:32:42 [ifette]: zakim, nute hefferjw
16:32:43 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:32:44 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, tl (muted), schunter, efelten, hefferjr (muted), BrendanIAB, chapell, dsriedel (muted), npdoty, aclearwater, [Google], justin_, [Apple], fielding, Lia,
16:32:46 [npdoty]: Zakim, mute hefferjr
16:32:47 [Zakim]: ... wilson, [Mozilla], pmagee, bilcorry (muted), Chris_PedigoOPA, dsinger, cOlsen, [Microsoft], eberkower, ??P54, hwest, enewland, vincent_, ksmith, jlenhart, hefferjw, johnsimpson
16:32:49 [ifette]: zakim, mute hefferjw
16:32:51 [Zakim]: ... (muted), rvaneijk, BrendanIAB.a
16:32:52 [Zakim]: [Google] has ifette
16:32:55 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:32:56 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:32:57 [Chris_IAB]: I am Skype but muted
16:32:58 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'nute hefferjw', ifette
16:33:00 [Zakim]: hefferjr was already muted, npdoty
16:33:02 [Zakim]: hefferjw should now be muted
16:33:12 [aleecia]: well, looks like we drop the p54 and find out who it was… :-(
16:33:20 [npdoty]: Zakim, ??P54 is Chris_IAB
16:33:20 [Zakim]: +Chris_IAB; got it
16:33:24 [aleecia]: ah!
16:33:26 [ifette]: matthias: aleecia proposes to drop p54
16:33:26 [aleecia]: great
16:33:31 [ifette]: ... we got it and are done
16:33:33 [ifette]: ... thanks a lot
16:33:37 [ifette]: ... no anonymous callers
16:33:46 [efelten]: Somebody did drop off when we started calling the roll.
16:33:48 [ifette]: ... continuing discussion
16:33:52 [ifette]: ... responses from sites
16:33:52 [ifette]: q?
16:33:53 [Chris_IAB]: I'm calling from Skype, yes, but I have been muted the entire time
16:34:00 [schunter]: q?
16:34:08 [schunter]: ack ifette
16:34:44 [aleecia]: zakim, mute me
16:34:44 [Zakim]: aleecia should now be muted
16:34:54 [tl]: +q
16:35:00 [Zakim]: -hefferjw
16:35:04 [ifette]: ifette: original version had the ability for a site to return an identifier for a policy, where that identifier could be retrieved at a well known location
16:35:11 [ifette]: matthias; why do you prefer this?
16:35:12 [fielding]: ifette: the current proposal of resource space is unusable. previous mechanism of returning a code for specific status in header is more tenable
16:36:14 [fielding]: ifette: depending on query parameters, may have different logging policy
16:36:23 [Zakim]: +hefferjw
16:36:40 [ifette]: ifette: the backend server serving the request is best suited to know the polciy at the time of the request, not a central oracle
16:36:42 [tl]: q?
16:36:53 [ifette]: roy: we've done something about ian's description
16:37:07 [ifette]: ... disadvantage is that the client does not have the ability to check the tracking status before sending the request that performs tracking
16:37:15 [ifette]: ... if you're sending the info in header fields in response
16:37:18 [npdoty]: is that pre-check a major use case?
16:37:19 [alex]: q?
16:37:28 [npdoty]: also, what about a HEAD or OPTIONS request?
16:37:31 [ifette]: ... doesn't work to be able to send query parameters to the server as this often contains info you don't want to be logged int eh first place
16:37:33 [ifette]: ... it's a tradeoff
16:37:50 [ifette]: ... can accept some tracking will occur and we don't know what until the status has been received, but that's a tradeoff and the reason i avoided this earlier
16:38:04 [ifette]: ... but as near as i can tell, the only way to solve ian's solution is with a return code based solution instead of resource based
16:38:12 [ifette]: ... don't yet have a proposal for how to fix, but working on
16:38:17 [ifette]: matthias: other comments related to ian's comment
16:38:19 [tl]: ack tl
16:38:20 [schunter]: q?
16:38:29 [jeffwilson]: jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:38:32 [ifette]: tom: i think that these two sets of needs are parallel
16:38:35 [ifette]: ... and both have a ?
16:38:48 [npdoty]: both satisfactory?, I think
16:38:51 [ifette]: ... if we implemented a proposal that said you can either do a well-known URI and response header when it changes
16:39:01 [ifette]: ... or a response header with a token pointing to a well-known URI
16:39:15 [ifette]: ... we need to make sure clients can tell which type of server they're dealing with but should be noncontroversial
16:39:24 [ifette]: ... if we let the site choose which approach works better for them, this will serve us well
16:39:32 [ifette]: ... complex sites like google can deal with their situation as such
16:39:40 [schunter]: I agree.
16:39:46 [dsinger]: It would be necesary that they have the same expressive power (e.g. the alpha-code that indicates permitted uses claimed is currently not permitted in the response header)
16:39:55 [schunter]: q?
16:39:57 [dsinger]: q+
16:39:59 [ifette]: ... and those sites with very simple implementation where they can describe their entire configuration with a single polciy applicable for all resources have a simple deployment mechanism
16:40:08 [ifette]: matthias: giving the site a choice of what mechanism to use, good point
16:40:13 [dsinger]: q-
16:40:16 [ifette]: ... david just put into irc <reads from irc>
16:40:33 [ifette]: matthias: by only having a header, eith you only have...
16:40:35 [ifette]: tom: interrupts
16:40:39 [npdoty]: is ifette asking for a Tk: response header with a meaningful code, or just a string that will be appended to a well-known uri?
16:40:40 [ifette]: ... they have the same amount of expressiveness
16:40:44 [ifette]: ... the URI is what contains all the content
16:40:52 [ifette]: ... the questin is how you get to the right URI
16:40:59 [ifette]: ... is it well-known-location + URL you're loading
16:41:03 [ifette]: ... or well known location + token
16:41:05 [dsinger]: q+
16:41:09 [npdoty]: currently http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#response-header-field doesn't just point to a URI, it has a tracking/not-tracking value
16:41:19 [ifette]: ... same amount of expressiveness
16:41:24 [fielding]: (i.e., do you get "/.well-known/dnt" or "/.well-known/dnt/875902"
16:41:24 [schunter]: Header->URL or URL-only or URL-> Header are our choices.
16:41:26 [ifette]: ... just different way to find the policy URI for your requet
16:41:29 [ifette]: matthias: get your point
16:41:37 [ifette]: ... header pointing to URL or only a URL
16:41:50 [npdoty]: q?
16:41:51 [ifette]: ... if you have both we need to define what it means, but good point
16:41:55 [ifette]: ... other comments
16:41:58 [schunter]: q?
16:42:02 [npdoty]: ack dsinger
16:42:16 [ifette]: dsinger: wonder if we shouldn't talk about permitted uses claims (alphanumeric + tracking/not tracking) in headers
16:42:26 [ifette]: ... otherwise insisiting that you augment a URL resource for anything
16:42:34 [ifette]: ... always two interactions
16:42:35 [ifette]: q+
16:42:40 [schunter]: q+
16:42:55 [ifette]: roy: advantage of not doing is that the resource can send same header to everyone, not suffer affects of caching
16:43:04 [dsinger]: q?
16:43:05 [npdoty]: ack ifette
16:43:08 [aleecia]: (ifette++ for knowing people by voice)
16:43:36 [npdoty]: ifette: hate to make an analogy to p3p but...
16:43:57 [aleecia]: (this idea pains me.)
16:44:07 [schunter]: Why?
16:44:07 [aleecia]: (it may be the best option, but: ow)
16:44:13 [npdoty]: ... a short code that is describing a reference to more info (in contrast to expressing the whole thing in the response header)
16:44:28 [aleecia]: unmute me
16:44:29 [schunter]: q?
16:44:32 [npdoty]: ack aleecia
16:44:36 [ifette]: tom: think requirements are related
16:44:42 [ifette]: ... think we broadly agree on the URI issues
16:44:46 [ifette]: ... some tweaking, but rough agreement
16:44:50 [aleecia]: the pain is how you know if you're seeing someone for the first time when you're not tracking them
16:44:56 [ifette]: ... paradigm of .well-known, interaction model is clear
16:44:59 [schunter]: URI + header and URI-only as the 2 potential interaction patterns.
16:45:00 [ifette]: ... don't need a response header first
16:45:06 [aleecia]: and that it's just a non-trivial bit of additional overhead
16:45:09 [ifette]: ... set of requirements about how much info we tell the user in response header straight-away
16:45:13 [aleecia]: this may be the best of all possible worlds
16:45:16 [ifette]: ... so that their user agent knows whether they want to continue
16:45:23 [schunter]: q-
16:45:28 [dsinger]: maybe linking header->URI is a good state to get to for the next round of public review, and maybe implementation and experience
16:45:33 [ifette]: matthias: any other questions
16:45:53 [npdoty]: +1 to dsinger, I think we can use implementation experience
16:46:08 [ifette]: aleecia: my concern in part is that it's difficult to know the policy when you first contact a site
16:46:10 [tl]: zakim, mute me
16:46:10 [Zakim]: tl should now be muted
16:46:11 [ifette]: ... one more piece of overhead
16:46:12 [ifette]: q+
16:46:15 [ifette]: ... may be best solution
16:46:19 [ifette]: ... aesthetically displeasing
16:46:36 [ifette]: matthias: intend to have minimal set of attributes we really need
16:46:41 [ifette]: ... once the generic, basic pattern is clear
16:46:43 [ifette]: ... we can fine-tune
16:46:44 [ifette]: q?
16:46:48 [aleecia]: (typing in IRC in that "just ignore me if you'd like" way)
16:46:50 [npdoty]: q?
16:47:00 [ifette]: q?
16:47:06 [schunter]: q?
16:47:17 [ifette]: roy: did you want to ask about the specific fields
16:47:23 [ifette]: matthias: at some point yes
16:47:28 [ifette]: ... but first better to settle basic scheme
16:47:34 [ifette]: ... intend to have a straw poll listing the fields
16:47:42 [ifette]: ... and getting a rough feeling of who needs them, who doesn't care, etc
16:47:43 [ifette]: q?
16:47:56 [ifette]: ... have no clue what's needed by whom
16:48:00 [schunter]: q?
16:48:12 [ifette]: ... want to gather some info and discuss as appropriate
16:48:19 [ifette]: q?
16:48:32 [npdoty]: ack ifette
16:48:51 [npdoty]: ifette: on the first-time use issue, I understand that you can't get the policy before you make the request
16:48:58 [npdoty]: ... but I'm not sure why that's problematic
16:49:01 [aleecia]: agreed
16:49:14 [npdoty]: ... only matters when DNT is turned on
16:49:29 [npdoty]: ... 1) I honor your DNT status (in which case, fine)
16:49:45 [npdoty]: ... 2) I see your DNT status but I don't support it
16:50:03 [npdoty]: ... 3) I see your DNT status but I'm tracking you anyway even though you don't have an exception
16:50:07 [aleecia]: ok
16:50:12 [npdoty]: q+
16:50:15 [tl]: zakim, unmute me
16:50:15 [Zakim]: tl should no longer be muted
16:50:24 [schunter]: q?
16:50:28 [ifette]: roy: if we require site-wide resource, then yes you can use that to figure out if a site supports DNT
16:50:33 [ifette]: tom: or there could be an out of band opt-in
16:50:43 [ifette]: ... one particular sharing you've instructed me to do
16:50:57 [ifette]: ... and i remember that and will do that
16:51:00 [schunter]: q?
16:51:28 [ifette]: matthias: let's look into that later
16:51:34 [npdoty]: q-
16:51:38 [ifette]: ... once we have a concrete proposal aleecia can circle back
16:51:57 [ifette]: matthias: do you have sufficient info to update the spec?
16:51:58 [npdoty]: I think the out-of-band exception case is important, that's a key time for a user to find out they're being tracked, and it may be a surprise
16:51:58 [ifette]: roy: yes
16:52:05 [aleecia]: great, I'm just not sure the "first time" concept works well. But really: do ignore me here, I'm not trying to derail. You're better at this (Ian, and collectively) than I am.
16:52:20 [ifette]: tom: think we have info for a next revision
16:52:29 [ifette]: matthias: everyone still free to send comments to mailing list
16:52:31 [ifette]: ... roy will update spec
16:52:41 [ifette]: .. how long do you need to update?
16:52:47 [ifette]: roy: tpe next week?
16:52:52 [ifette]: matthias: two weeks?
16:53:03 [ifette]: aleecia: next week would be easier
16:53:07 [ifette]: ... have meeting on wednesday
16:53:30 [schunter]: q?
16:53:47 [ifette]: ACTION: fielding to update DNT spec to take into account discussion around policies at just a well known URL or well known URL plus token
16:53:47 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-199 - Update DNT spec to take into account discussion around policies at just a well known URL or well known URL plus token [on Roy Fielding - due 2012-05-23].
16:53:56 [ifette]: TOPIC: site-wide exceptions
16:54:06 [ifette]: matthias: think we have consensus on site-wide exceptions
16:54:09 [ifette]: ... and web-wide exceptions
16:54:10 [npdoty]: agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012May/0223.html
16:54:10 [ifette]: Agenda?
16:54:25 [ifette]: TOPIC: explicit/explicit exceptions
16:54:40 [fielding]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012May/0201.html
16:54:51 [ifette]: matthias: ongoing discussion, lots of points on both sides
16:55:03 [ifette]: ... concerns around abilities of large sites to use this, and complex UI
16:55:13 [ifette]: ... sent proposal to list
16:55:22 [ifette]: ... point was to find a balance between privacy, UI, and transparency
16:55:33 [ifette]: ... simplify by saying only list top-level third parties
16:55:39 [ifette]: ... e.g. the ad-network but not everyone below this
16:55:39 [alex]: q+
16:55:42 [ifette]: ... UI can make simplifications
16:55:43 [ifette]: q+
16:55:46 [ifette]: ... browser can use same UI
16:55:58 [ifette]: ... e.g. for first/* and first/{third,third}
16:56:02 [tl]: I have to drop off very shortly, which is unfortunate.
16:56:04 [ifette]: ... hope this is a nice balance
16:56:10 [ifette]: ... and that we can move forward
16:56:15 [JC]: +q
16:56:15 [ifette]: ... see during feedback phases what people think
16:56:19 [schunter]: q?
16:56:27 [ifette]: ... no surprise, people have opinions
16:56:30 [ifette]: ack alex
16:56:35 [npdoty]: alex?
16:56:41 [schunter]: ack alex
16:56:50 [ifette]: ... skipping alex
16:57:04 [alex]: Sry was on mute.
16:57:07 [alex]: q?
16:57:13 [fielding]: q+ to ask if the ad network transitivity works by telling the browser to send DNT: 0 to all redirects on the chain?
16:57:22 [alex]: zakim, unmute me
16:57:22 [Zakim]: sorry, alex, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:57:27 [ifette]: ifette: all my previous points still hold, this slightly reduces the number of third parties but still has the same problem
16:57:34 [dsinger]: I think sites that pull in widgets, or the like, might like to be cautious?
16:57:37 [npdoty]: Zakim, unmute Nielsen
16:57:37 [Zakim]: sorry, npdoty, I do not know which phone connection belongs to Nielsen
16:57:39 [ifette]: matthias: can you live with this being in the public draft
16:57:43 [ifette]: ... if no one uses, easy to drop
16:58:01 [alex]: Nick Seems that I can't unmute myself
16:58:03 [dsinger]: 'not implement' on which side? the browser or services?
16:58:08 [aleecia]: ack alex
16:58:11 [ifette]: ifette: we would not implement this, we would likely thus be noncomplaint and therefore would not support this in the spec
16:58:22 [aleecia]: Alex, you should not be muted from Zakim
16:58:32 [Zakim]: -tl
16:58:38 [aleecia]: Zakim, who is on the call?
16:58:38 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, schunter, efelten, hefferjr (muted), BrendanIAB, chapell, dsriedel (muted), npdoty, aclearwater, [Google], justin_, [Apple], fielding, Lia, wilson,
16:58:39 [alex]: will try again
16:58:41 [Zakim]: ... [Mozilla], pmagee, bilcorry (muted), Chris_PedigoOPA, dsinger, cOlsen, [Microsoft], eberkower, Chris_IAB, hwest, enewland, vincent_, ksmith, jlenhart, johnsimpson (muted),
16:58:41 [Zakim]: ... rvaneijk, BrendanIAB.a, hefferjw
16:58:41 [Zakim]: [Google] has ifette
16:58:41 [Zakim]: [Apple] has hober
16:58:41 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:59:10 [npdoty]: ifette, sorry, who would complain in that case?
16:59:16 [schunter]: q?
16:59:17 [aleecia]: heifer, dsriedel, bilberry, and johnsimpson are muted
16:59:45 [ifette]: alex: wanted to point out that i have a proposal
16:59:50 [ifette]: ... for web wide exceptions
16:59:53 [ifette]: ... that we briefly discussed
16:59:55 [Chapell]: Chapell has joined #dnt
16:59:57 [ifette]: ... proposal at that time may be relevant
17:00:03 [ifette]: ... the trees that identify each subsequent call
17:00:06 [ifette]: ... are identified by the browser
17:00:14 [schunter]: Ian: If the EU people are OK with over-simplifying explicit/explicit using the site-wide UI, then you would be OK with it, too?
17:00:17 [ifette]: ... and there is a well-known URI that the first of those trees (the root of the tree)
17:00:25 [ifette]: ... identifies who's responsible for the tree below it
17:00:26 [npdoty]: s/Ian:/Ian,/
17:00:42 [ifette]: ... i make a call to nielsen, nielsen calls other parties, well known URL explains that I am responsible for those subsequent calls
17:00:45 [hober]: q+
17:00:48 [ifette]: ... that allows the browser to make an intelligent decision
17:00:48 [ifette]: q-
17:00:53 [ifette]: ... that is the proposal brtiefly
17:00:56 [ifette]: ... briefly
17:01:00 [ifette]: ... may be a solution to this
17:01:09 [dsinger]: q+
17:01:13 [ifette]: matthias: good point, saying that if a party is listed it's responsible for it's children
17:01:24 [rvaneijk]: I like the idea, alex
17:01:28 [ifette]: alex: or maybe it disclaims responsibility for people other than a given list
17:01:35 [rvaneijk]: it expresses chain responsibility
17:01:35 [npdoty]: q+ to ask ifette regarding who will complain if Chrome implements in a certain way
17:01:49 [ifette]: npdoty, sorry for not answering earlier, hard being scribe
17:02:04 [ifette]: jc: sounds like these solutiosn require changes to browser to make them effective, don't realistically see that happening
17:02:09 [ifette]: ... MSFT lists our third parties on our website
17:02:16 [ifette]: ... can understand having a link / passing a link to browser
17:02:23 [ifette]: ... but don't see the browser exposing that
17:02:32 [ifette]: ... well known URI with policy seems more approachable solution
17:02:34 [aleecia]: (presumably other sites don't know their third parties in any stable way?)
17:02:39 [ifette]: alex: JC, realize there's changes in browsers being discussed
17:02:47 [ifette]: ... but from a third party perspective, there's a lot of changes we have to do
17:02:54 [ifette]: ... expect shared burden
17:02:57 [aleecia]: (and the browsers do have changes to make...)
17:03:05 [ifette]: ... may not be a change for all browsers, only DNT
17:03:11 [ifette]: ... could be done as a plugin or separate sort of thing
17:03:12 [ifette]: ... addon
17:03:21 [ifette]: q+ to say if it's an addon we don't have to standardize it
17:03:25 [schunter]: q?
17:03:28 [ifette]: ... believe browsers should share burden
17:03:29 [schunter]: ack JC
17:03:33 [ifette]: JC: how many consumers would actually ever use this
17:03:39 [ifette]: ... if that's less than 1%, why would a browse want to do this
17:03:47 [ifette]: ... not speaking for IE here, but why would a browser do this if no one uses it
17:03:52 [ifette]: alex: we don't know
17:04:02 [ifette]: ... how many people will use DNT, will care about explicit/explicit
17:04:04 [aleecia]: 1% of 220M+ US users = a lot of people :-)
17:04:08 [ifette]: JC: we need to know
17:04:13 [ifette]: aleecia, not enough :)
17:04:13 [schunter]: q?
17:04:17 [ifette]: aleecia, a lot is relative
17:04:23 [ifette]: JC: we have numbers on how often consuemrs click on things
17:04:38 [ifette]: ... would like to state that those 'nice to have' features aren't as important as things that actually protect your privacy
17:04:44 [aleecia]: don't we have issue with the EU?
17:04:47 [ifette]: ... oh, let me see this list, i have no idea what it is, let me turn it off
17:04:54 [ifette]: ... there's a way to find this anways, e.g. in privacy policy
17:04:57 [aleecia]: Rob & Ninja aren't on the call today
17:04:59 [JC]: http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.mspx#ESG
17:05:05 [ifette]: alex: big ecosystem
17:05:14 [rvaneijk]: JC, having it readily available in a JSON would be important for me
17:05:16 [ifette]: ... probably your description applies to first party and maybe immediate third parties
17:05:18 [aleecia]: But I think we run into problems if we cannot somehow identify what you're consenting to
17:05:24 [rvaneijk]: Aleecia, Rob made it off the train
17:05:25 [ksmith]: I wonder what good it would do. This proposal may assign 'responsibility' and may even make 3rd parties discoverable, but not in the process of loading a site. This does not solve the basic problems of a)letting a user make a good decision and b) allowing a site to make changes based on that decision.
17:05:27 [ifette]: ... what i'm describing is the current ecosystem of how the internet works
17:05:34 [ifette]: ... if you implement what i described, you dont have to change the internet
17:05:49 [ifette]: ... each person responsible for the calls they make themselves
17:05:51 [ifette]: ... full disclosure
17:05:53 [aleecia]: Hi Rob, please set me straight since my view of EU is not nearly as strong as yours..
17:05:58 [ifette]: ... up to user to make the correct decision
17:06:14 [schunter]: q?
17:06:21 [schunter]: ack fielding
17:06:21 [Zakim]: fielding, you wanted to ask if the ad network transitivity works by telling the browser to send DNT: 0 to all redirects on the chain?
17:06:24 [rvaneijk]: Aleecia, I like the idea of ALex, and having the info availlable in JSON would be great.
17:06:25 [ifette]: roy: generally agree with what ian has described
17:06:48 [ifette]: ... even if we came up with perfect description of this mechanism, so complex that browsers wouldn't want to develop and servers wouldn't be able to rely as complex things on the client aren't likely to be consistent
17:06:59 [aleecia]: "would be great" isn't the threshold that I think we're going for, per se. The question I had was more is it necessary (JSON or not) to fly in the EU
17:07:06 [ifette]: ... end result of this whole process is a very complicated dialogue of a list of companies, none of which have a relationship with the user
17:07:12 [schunter]: q+
17:07:16 [ifette]: ... doesn't satisfy anyone's needs, even regulatory needs
17:07:25 [ifette]: ... most ad networks have names/descriptions taht normal users wouldn't understand
17:07:30 [ifette]: ... and thus it's not really an informed choice
17:07:31 [hober]: q-
17:07:39 [schunter]: ack hober
17:07:42 [rvaneijk]: if it expresses controller-procesor relation it is nececcary
17:07:42 [npdoty]: fielding, you wanted to ask if the ad network transitivity works by telling the browser to send DNT: 0 to all redirects on the chain?
17:07:43 [vincent_]: q+
17:07:46 [schunter]: ack dsinger
17:07:48 [Zakim]: -justin_
17:07:59 [aleecia]: can we do top layer, or do we need the chain?
17:08:00 [ifette]: dsinger: think we have to cope with having an explicit hostname on first or third party
17:08:09 [ifette]: ... because we're dealing with a site-wide exception
17:08:13 [ifette]: ... or a web wide exception
17:08:24 [ifette]: ... so have to cope with that database problem of third party names in database
17:08:26 [rvaneijk]: s/nececcary/necessary
17:08:26 [fielding]: npdoty, I think the answer would be yes, but OBE
17:08:32 [ifette]: ... need to be cautious about what browsers will implement initially
17:08:41 [ifette]: ... won't expose while DNT is establishing itself, don't want to warn every day
17:08:41 [Zakim]: -dsriedel
17:08:53 [ifette]: ... want to be cautious about what we learn is exposed/used by users
17:09:03 [ifette]: ... don't want to flood users with a host of warnings/dialogs as things get implemented
17:09:08 [ifette]: ... think we might need
17:09:21 [rvaneijk]: q+
17:09:25 [ifette]: ... may be first parties that don't actally want a site-wide exception for all third parties, some assumption of responsibility
17:09:33 [ifette]: ... maybe they're not willing to extend that out
17:09:42 [ifette]: ifette: is there an assumption of responsibility?!?!
17:09:44 [ifette]: ... that's new
17:09:53 [ifette]: dsinger: we need to have explicit for a while while we learn how things get used
17:09:56 [ifette]: ... may be a UI problem
17:10:07 [ifette]: ... but don't think unrecognizability of third partyy names is relevant
17:10:14 [ifette]: ... would say NYT has asked you to trust X,Y,Z
17:10:23 [ifette]: ... in either case, doesn't really matter to the user what the third party list is
17:10:26 [rvaneijk]: it add transparency !
17:10:28 [ifette]: ... more matters which first party is asking
17:10:32 [schunter]: Would it be a viable solution for the EU to say that we only have (site+web)-wide exceptions while companies are free to then fix the set of third parties via the URL?
17:10:36 [schunter]: q?
17:10:46 [ifette]: ... having this data available is important
17:10:49 [schunter]: ack npdoty
17:10:49 [Zakim]: npdoty, you wanted to ask ifette regarding who will complain if Chrome implements in a certain way
17:10:52 [fielding]: designer, then it should just ask first-party/*
17:10:52 [ksmith]: it does not add transparency as transparency can be accomplished in many less confusing and less complicated methods
17:10:56 [Zakim]: -Chris_PedigoOPA
17:11:13 [Zakim]: -BrendanIAB
17:11:14 [ifette]: npdoty: we had discussed different UI implementations or interpretations previously
17:11:21 [ifette]: ... allowing a browser to interpet explicit as *
17:11:28 [fielding]: s/designer/dsinger/
17:11:31 [ifette]: ... ian was concerned someone would complain
17:11:34 [ifette]: ... wanted more detail
17:11:38 [dsinger]: to roy: no, you missed my point that there may be mash-up sites that only want to ask for their advertizers, trackers, etc. and not whoever their mashed content may pull in.
17:11:42 [ifette]: ... useful feedback
17:11:47 [ifette]: ... not sure who would object
17:11:55 [schunter]: q?
17:12:02 [schunter]: ack ifette
17:12:02 [Zakim]: ifette, you wanted to say if it's an addon we don't have to standardize it
17:12:30 [dsinger]: to roy - there is an implication of some responsibility over the 3rd parties, on the 1st party's part
17:13:09 [rvaneijk]: ifette, I will respond, am in the queue
17:13:45 [schunter]: q?
17:13:57 [ifette]: ifette: if you translate explicit to *, then does it still meet eu requirements etc
17:14:18 [ifette]: npdoty: implementation might affect whether it satisfies requirements of a jurisdiction
17:14:22 [ifette]: ... but still feel it would be useful
17:14:33 [johnsimpson]: q?
17:14:41 [vincent_]: i can wait as well :)
17:14:44 [npdoty]: ack rvaneijk
17:14:50 [ifette]: rvaneijk: let me quickly circle back to ian's comments
17:14:56 [ifette]: ... useful (alex's proposal)
17:15:09 [ifette]: ... but it gets interesting under assumption taht the user would shift a granular consent mechanism to browser
17:15:24 [ifette]: ... having explicit info (top party, with a lsit of parties it's responsible for) is a way to increase transparency
17:15:25 [ifette]: q+
17:15:37 [ifette]: ... user doesn't ahve to worry about a whole colleciton of third parties that signal to be compliant
17:15:44 [ifette]: ... think there are possibly less complicated solutions
17:15:53 [ifette]: ... but since we're reacting on alex' proposal, there are a lot of possibilities there
17:16:21 [ifette]: matthias: posted to the list that concern from privacy perspective is that consent to an arbitrary list may not be ideal
17:16:31 [ifette]: ... enterprises are free to bind themselves to specific list of third parties at well known URI
17:16:40 [ifette]: ... if you do a site-wide exception, here's what it means (here's a list)
17:16:45 [Zakim]: -jlenhart
17:16:45 [ifette]: ... have bound yourself to this list
17:16:48 [ifette]: ... have the same info
17:16:51 [ifette]: ... just packaged differently
17:17:07 [ifette]: ... it's a site wide exception, what a site is may or may not be specified in detail at the well known URI
17:17:08 [ifette]: q+
17:17:19 [ifette]: vincent: to clarify, are you referring to JS API that does what you described
17:17:29 [ifette]: matthias: proposal was to have JS api that is either web-wide or site-wide
17:17:32 [ifette]: ... no explicit
17:17:46 [ifette]: ... if a site wants, it can make it explicit by posting a list of third parties at the well-known URI
17:17:52 [ifette]: q+ to say i really like matthias's proposal
17:17:55 [dsinger]: q+
17:17:58 [ifette]: vincent: fundamental problem
17:18:07 [vincent_]: this is alex, not vincent
17:18:15 [ifette]: ... my proposal tries to deal with this, which is there are certain first parties that do not allow JS from a third party to run on their website
17:18:18 [ifette]: ... so this becomes problematic
17:18:23 [dsinger]: oh ugh, that means the UA has to fetch the well-known URI EVERY TIME it needs to send a DNT header, doesn't it??
17:18:24 [vincent_]: s/vincent/alex
17:18:24 [ifette]: s/vincent/alex/
17:18:35 [ifette]: alex: for site specfic this will work
17:18:36 [dsinger]: (if the site is on the list, send DNT:0 else DNT:1)
17:18:39 [ifette]: ... for web-wide it will not work
17:18:56 [ifette]: matthias: could you raise as an issue
17:19:01 [ifette]: ... separate from what we are discussing now
17:19:12 [ifette]: ... somehow, third party has to get access to this framework and that shouldn't be gated on third party
17:19:15 [ifette]: ISSUE-137?
17:19:15 [trackbot]: ISSUE-137 -- Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s) -- pending review
17:19:15 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
17:19:21 [schunter]: q?
17:19:22 [ifette]: ... back to queue
17:19:26 [schunter]: ack schunter
17:19:41 [ifette]: vincent: suggestion to use additional parameter in exception request
17:19:44 [ifette]: ... to make it mandatory
17:19:48 [ifette]: ... (you must accept this)
17:19:50 [npdoty]: alex, I don't think it's 137 you're talking about...
17:19:54 [ifette]: ... to ensure every user has required exceptions
17:19:58 [ifette]: ACTION-137?
17:19:58 [trackbot]: ACTION-137 -- Thomas Lowenthal to draft alternate proposal on first-party targeting based on registration information -- due 2012-03-10 -- CLOSED
17:19:58 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/137
17:20:07 [ifette]: ... know which third party is granted an exception
17:20:15 [alex]: Rey its issue-138
17:20:16 [ifette]: ... intermediary between well known URI and adding explicit/explicit
17:20:26 [ifette]: ISSUE-138?
17:20:26 [trackbot]: ISSUE-138 -- Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI -- pending review
17:20:26 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
17:20:27 [alex]: Rey = Sry
17:20:30 [schunter]: q?
17:20:39 [schunter]: ack vincent_
17:20:43 [schunter]: ack ifette
17:20:43 [Zakim]: ifette, you wanted to say i really like matthias's proposal
17:21:19 [fielding]: sounds like david
17:21:25 [schunter]: [Nick: understood what?]
17:21:42 [vincent_]: the idea would be to have an additional parameter to the requestSiteSpcific exception which tells if a given exception is mandatory to be allowed to visit a first aprty
17:22:34 [schunter]: q?
17:22:38 [npdoty]: q+
17:22:39 [vincent_]: hence the first party would be sure that every visitor has granted an exception to a list of first parties
17:22:57 [ifette]: dsinger: you're either saying we're moving the parameters from the call to the well known URI
17:23:01 [ifette]: q+
17:23:06 [schunter]: to make ian happy ;-)
17:23:15 [ifette]: ... or if the well known URI can change over time, the UA has to fetch this every time
17:23:27 [ifette]: ... that's unimplementable
17:23:29 [ifette]: ... don't follow
17:23:29 [npdoty]: vincent, I'm not sure how we could make it mandatory for visiting the site, or if we would want to
17:23:33 [fielding]: I think Ian meant UA would treat it as *
17:24:24 [ifette]: ... ok, so sites with a list of trusted ads/analytics
17:24:30 [vincent_]: npdoty, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012May/0117.html last paragraph
17:24:31 [ifette]: ... but also mashup content that they do not wish to be responsible for
17:24:43 [ifette]: ... they ask for exception,a lso take on repsonsibility for more
17:24:44 [fielding]: (and a truly concerned UA could choose to request the info more often)
17:25:08 [Zakim]: -[Mozilla]
17:25:08 [schunter]: q?
17:25:16 [schunter]: ack dsinger
17:25:18 [ifette]: ifette: where in the spec does it say you take on liability or responsibility
17:25:32 [ifette]: matthias: think that it's best if i put a single line in the irc to describe my solution
17:25:42 [ifette]: ... suggest i can put an action on me to further describe
17:25:44 [vincent_]: npdoty, for the how we may just add the paramter and expect the browser to prevent the user to visit the website (keep visibility off for instance) if a required exception ahs not been granted
17:25:47 [ifette]: ... and maybe things become clearer
17:25:52 [ifette]: ... but move parameter to well known URI
17:26:02 [ifette]: ... still has advantage of informing people even if no call is made
17:26:02 [schunter]: q
17:26:05 [ifette]: ... glance at queue
17:26:05 [schunter]: q?
17:26:05 [ifette]: q?
17:26:07 [ifette]: q-
17:26:11 [johnsimpson]: q?
17:26:18 [ifette]: npdoty: may be we can wait for more detailed proposal
17:26:26 [ifette]: ... same concern to david around a site may wanting to narrow its scope
17:26:37 [ksmith]: ksmith has left #DNT
17:26:39 [ifette]: ... can discuss in repsonse to more detaield proposal
17:26:41 [npdoty]: q-
17:26:43 [Zakim]: -ksmith
17:26:44 [schunter]: q?
17:27:00 [ifette]: matthias: we haven't yet closed ISSUE-140 but are making progress, which is good
17:27:09 [ifette]: ... vaguely want to start a discussion on UA behaviour
17:27:16 [ifette]: ... roy made comment that UAs are hard to police
17:27:22 [ifette]: ... UAs may do stuff we do / dont like
17:27:29 [ifette]: ... want to discuss obligations on UAs for exception framework
17:27:31 [npdoty]: vincent_, I don't think we want to block access to sites altogether though, do we?! sites wouldn't have a chance to explain (via HTML) in further detail
17:27:36 [ifette]: ... not now, just queueing this up
17:27:39 [ifette]: ... finally, some open issues
17:27:43 [ifette]: ... want to resolve quickly
17:27:45 [ifette]: ISSUE-84?
17:27:45 [trackbot]: ISSUE-84 -- Make DNT status available to JavaScript -- open
17:27:45 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/84
17:27:48 [ifette]: ISSUE-112?
17:27:48 [trackbot]: ISSUE-112 -- How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? -- open
17:27:48 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
17:28:03 [ifette]: ACTION: ifette to write text for ISSUE-84 due 2012-06-01
17:28:04 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-200 - Write text for ISSUE-84 due 2012-06-01 [on Ian Fette - due 2012-05-23].
17:28:16 [ifette]: ACTION: ifette to write text for ISSUE-112, due 2015-06-01
17:28:16 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-201 - Write text for ISSUE-112, due 2015-06-01 [on Ian Fette - due 2012-05-23].
17:28:27 [ifette]: ACTION-200 due 2012-06-01
17:28:27 [trackbot]: ACTION-200 Write text for ISSUE-84 due 2012-06-01 due date now 2012-06-01
17:28:33 [ifette]: ACTION-201 due 2012-06-01
17:28:33 [trackbot]: ACTION-201 Write text for ISSUE-112, due 2015-06-01 due date now 2012-06-01
17:28:50 [ifette]: matthias: npdoty, can you associate ACTION-180 to this issue
17:28:55 [JC]: f2f
17:28:58 [ifette]: ... did i overlook anything else
17:29:00 [JC]: q+
17:29:05 [schunter]: q?
17:29:18 [ifette]: jc: talked about registration site for f2f
17:29:23 [ifette]: ... can we push people to start registering
17:29:30 [ifette]: npdoty: will send out today
17:29:36 [ifette]: ... have some people who have already replied
17:29:50 [ifette]: aleecia: people who have already sent email who cc'd aleecia, nick or aleecia can enter them
17:29:55 [ifette]: ... but they may need to give dietary preference
17:30:06 [ifette]: jc: what is the cutoff
17:30:10 [ifette]: aleecia: propose one
17:30:12 [vincent_]: npdoty, good point we should allow a website to explain itself (maybe throught the callback, did not think through that yet)
17:30:22 [ifette]: jc: need 1wk in advance
17:30:26 [Zakim]: -pmagee
17:30:34 [ifette]: aleecia: 2wk cutoff
17:30:44 [ifette]: ... or 1wk cutoff
17:30:48 [Zakim]: -eberkower
17:30:53 [schunter]: q?
17:30:54 [npdoty]: sounding like June 13th for registrations, we'll send out a registration form
17:30:59 [ifette]: matthias; final words?
17:31:00 [ifette]: ... bye
17:31:01 [Zakim]: -Lia
17:31:09 [Zakim]: -efelten
17:31:10 [Zakim]: -enewland
17:31:10 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
17:31:10 [Zakim]: -aleecia
17:31:11 [ifette]: ... next week, same bat time, same bat channel
17:31:11 [Zakim]: -chapell
17:31:12 [Zakim]: -hwest
17:31:12 [rvaneijk]: rvaneijk has left #dnt
17:31:13 [Zakim]: -hefferjr
17:31:13 [Zakim]: -hefferjw
17:31:14 [johnsimpson]: thanks
17:31:15 [aleecia]: :-)
17:31:15 [Zakim]: -npdoty
17:31:17 [Zakim]: -schunter
17:31:20 [Zakim]: -johnsimpson
17:31:21 [aleecia]: I think that every call, Ian
17:31:21 [Zakim]: -dsinger
17:31:21 [ifette]: zakim, list participants
17:31:23 [Zakim]: -rvaneijk
17:31:25 [Zakim]: -wilson
17:31:28 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.674.aaaa, +1.609.981.aabb, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.813.366.aadd, +1.202.835.aaee, +1.646.654.aaff, +49.721.91.aagg, +1.202.530.aahh,
17:31:30 [Zakim]: ... +1.510.859.aaii, +1.617.733.aajj, +1.202.637.aakk, +1.714.852.aall, +1.202.587.aamm, hober, +1.703.265.aann, ifette, dsriedel, efelten, npdoty, fielding, justin_, sidstamm,
17:31:34 [Zakim]: ... +1.202.326.aaoo, Lia, aclearwater, +1.408.223.aapp, aleecia, +1.202.403.aaqq, dsinger, Chris_PedigoOPA, pmagee, +1.202.326.aarr, [Microsoft], +1.646.666.aass, +1.202.346.aatt,
17:31:36 [Zakim]: ... tl, bilcorry, enewland, hwest, vincent_, +385221aauu, ksmith, +1.215.286.aavv, +1.813.366.aaww, +1.310.392.aaxx, johnsimpson, hefferjr, chapell, schunter, eberkower,
17:31:38 [johnsimpson]: johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:31:39 [Zakim]: ... +1.316.514.aayy, jlenhart, rvaneijk, cOlsen, BrendanIAB, hefferjw, wilson, Chris_IAB
17:31:41 [Zakim]: -[Apple]
17:31:44 [Zakim]: -bilcorry
17:31:45 [Zakim]: -vincent_
17:31:47 [Zakim]: -aclearwater
17:31:49 [Zakim]: -fielding
17:31:51 [Zakim]: -Chris_IAB
17:31:54 [Zakim]: -cOlsen
17:32:07 [ifette]: rrsagent, draft the minutes
17:32:07 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/16-dnt-minutes.html ifette
17:32:09 [npdoty]: the numbers in this attendee list are a bug in Zakim, as actually those were named during our call
17:32:50 [Zakim]: -BrendanIAB.a
17:33:09 [Zakim]: -[Google]
17:33:11 [Zakim]: T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:33:11 [Zakim]: Attendees were +1.408.674.aaaa, +1.609.981.aabb, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.813.366.aadd, +1.202.835.aaee, +1.646.654.aaff, +49.721.91.aagg, +1.202.530.aahh, +1.510.859.aaii,
17:33:11 [Zakim]: ... +1.617.733.aajj, +1.202.637.aakk, +1.714.852.aall, +1.202.587.aamm, hober, +1.703.265.aann, ifette, dsriedel, efelten, npdoty, fielding, justin_, sidstamm, +1.202.326.aaoo,
17:33:13 [Zakim]: ... Lia, aclearwater, +1.408.223.aapp, aleecia, +1.202.403.aaqq, dsinger, Chris_PedigoOPA, pmagee, +1.202.326.aarr, [Microsoft], +1.646.666.aass, +1.202.346.aatt, tl, bilcorry,
17:33:13 [Zakim]: ... enewland, hwest, vincent_, +385221aauu, ksmith, +1.215.286.aavv, +1.813.366.aaww, +1.310.392.aaxx, johnsimpson, hefferjr, chapell, schunter, eberkower, +1.316.514.aayy,
17:33:17 [Zakim]: ... jlenhart, rvaneijk, cOlsen, BrendanIAB, hefferjw, wilson, Chris_IAB
17:56:53 [aleecia]: aleecia has joined #dnt
18:18:58 [aleecia]: aleecia has joined #dnt
18:26:26 [aleecia]: aleecia has joined #dnt
18:41:14 [aleecia]: aleecia has joined #dnt
18:47:25 [aleecia]: aleecia has joined #dnt