IRC log of dnt on 2012-11-07
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:52:11 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #dnt
- 16:52:11 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc
- 16:52:11 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #dnt
- 16:52:15 [npdoty]
- Zakim, this will be 87225
- 16:52:16 [Zakim]
- ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
- 16:52:27 [npdoty]
- chair: schunter
- 16:53:03 [Zakim]
- T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
- 16:53:10 [Zakim]
- +??P15
- 16:53:21 [dsinger]
- zakim, ??P15 is me
- 16:53:21 [Zakim]
- +dsinger; got it
- 16:53:36 [dsinger]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:53:36 [Zakim]
- sorry, dsinger, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
- 16:53:47 [dsinger]
- zakim, you are a dumb cluck
- 16:53:47 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'you are a dumb cluck', dsinger
- 16:54:14 [dsinger]
- zakim, I have replaced you with a local mute
- 16:54:14 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'I have replaced you with a local mute', dsinger
- 16:55:02 [aleecia]
- :-)
- 16:55:15 [Zakim]
- +??P18
- 16:55:16 [sidstamm]
- sidstamm has joined #dnt
- 16:55:29 [BrendanIAB]
- BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
- 16:55:31 [schunter]
- Zakim, ??P18 is schunter
- 16:55:31 [Zakim]
- +schunter; got it
- 16:55:50 [Zakim]
- +Rigo
- 16:55:53 [npdoty]
- agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0042.html
- 16:56:13 [rigo]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:56:13 [Zakim]
- Rigo should now be muted
- 16:56:29 [npdoty]
- if you're alone in the woods, can a teleconference system mute you?
- 16:56:38 [aleecia]
- Zakim, agenda?
- 16:56:38 [Zakim]
- I see nothing on the agenda
- 16:57:00 [aleecia]
- Nick, you've got this?
- 16:57:18 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ scribe selection
- 16:57:19 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 added
- 16:57:35 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
- 16:57:35 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 added
- 16:57:47 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ callers identified
- 16:57:47 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 added
- 16:57:49 [Joanne]
- Joanne has joined #DNT
- 16:58:14 [ninjamarnau]
- ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
- 16:58:15 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:58:16 [WileyS]
- WileyS has joined #DNT
- 16:58:20 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ new approach to exceptions
- 16:58:20 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 added
- 16:58:23 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.a]
- 16:58:26 [Zakim]
- + +1.202.478.aaaa
- 16:58:30 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
- 16:58:30 [Zakim]
- agendum 5 added
- 16:58:33 [dwainberg]
- dwainberg has joined #dnt
- 16:58:33 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 16:58:37 [BrendanIAB]
- Zakim, IPcaller.a is probably me
- 16:58:37 [Zakim]
- +BrendanIAB?; got it
- 16:58:38 [Chris_IAB]
- Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
- 16:58:39 [rachel_thomas]
- rachel_thomas has joined #dnt
- 16:58:43 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory?
- 16:58:43 [Zakim]
- agendum 6 added
- 16:58:46 [rigo]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:58:46 [Zakim]
- Rigo should now be muted
- 16:58:52 [Zakim]
- + +1.212.380.aabb
- 16:58:57 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between
- 16:58:57 [Zakim]
- agendum 7 added
- 16:58:57 [npdoty]
- first party (1) and outsourcing service provider
- 16:58:58 [schunter]
- Zakim, mute me
- 16:58:58 [Zakim]
- schunter should now be muted
- 16:58:59 [Zakim]
- + +1.408.260.aacc
- 16:59:04 [moneill2]
- zakim, a is me
- 16:59:04 [Zakim]
- sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named 'a'
- 16:59:05 [rigo]
- zakim, mute schunter
- 16:59:06 [Zakim]
- schunter was already muted, rigo
- 16:59:08 [sidstamm]
- Zakim, aacc is sidstamm
- 16:59:08 [Zakim]
- +sidstamm; got it
- 16:59:08 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda+ Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs:
- 16:59:09 [Zakim]
- agendum 8 added
- 16:59:11 [Zakim]
- + +49.431.98.aadd
- 16:59:13 [Chris_IAB]
- just joined from the 212 area code
- 16:59:18 [jchester2]
- jchester2 has joined #dnt
- 16:59:21 [ninjamarnau]
- zakim, aadd is ninjamarnau
- 16:59:21 [Zakim]
- +ninjamarnau; got it
- 16:59:21 [rigo]
- zakim, aadd is Ninja
- 16:59:23 [Zakim]
- sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
- 16:59:23 [Zakim]
- + +1.813.366.aaee
- 16:59:28 [Zakim]
- + +1.646.801.aaff
- 16:59:30 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aabb is Chris_IAB
- 16:59:30 [Zakim]
- +Chris_IAB; got it
- 16:59:39 [dwainberg]
- zakim, aaff is dwainberg
- 16:59:39 [Zakim]
- +dwainberg; got it
- 17:00:02 [Zakim]
- + +1.510.859.aagg
- 17:00:05 [moneill2]
- zakim, [IPcaller].a is me
- 17:00:05 [Zakim]
- sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller].a'
- 17:00:08 [schunter]
- Zakim, who is online
- 17:00:08 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is online', schunter
- 17:00:13 [npdoty]
- Zakim, who is making noise?
- 17:00:18 [vinay]
- vinay has joined #dnt
- 17:00:18 [vincent]
- vincent has joined #dnt
- 17:00:21 [Chris_IAB]
- start horn just signaled!
- 17:00:25 [Zakim]
- npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
- 17:00:27 [Zakim]
- +[Google]
- 17:00:29 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller]
- 17:00:34 [Zakim]
- +jchester2
- 17:00:37 [dsinger]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:00:37 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, +1.202.478.aaaa, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, +1.813.366.aaee, dwainberg, +1.510.859.aagg, [Google],
- 17:00:40 [Zakim]
- ... jchester2
- 17:00:44 [jchester2]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:00:44 [Zakim]
- jchester2 should now be muted
- 17:00:55 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 17:01:10 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aaee is eberkower
- 17:01:10 [Zakim]
- +eberkower; got it
- 17:01:15 [ifette]
- ifette has joined #dnt
- 17:01:16 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aagg is npdoty
- 17:01:16 [Zakim]
- +npdoty; got it
- 17:01:27 [eberkower]
- eberkower has joined #dnt
- 17:01:32 [ifette]
- zakim, google has ifette
- 17:01:32 [Zakim]
- +ifette; got it
- 17:01:35 [tlr]
- zakim, call thomas-781
- 17:01:35 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr; the call is being made
- 17:01:38 [Zakim]
- +Thomas
- 17:01:56 [Zakim]
- + +1.212.768.aahh
- 17:01:56 [Chris_IAB]
- 202 is DC
- 17:02:01 [fielding]
- fielding has joined #dnt
- 17:02:09 [suegl]
- suegl has joined #dnt
- 17:02:12 [Zakim]
- + +1.408.349.aaii
- 17:02:14 [tlr]
- zakim, I am thomas
- 17:02:14 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
- 17:02:16 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:02:16 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 17:02:22 [Chris_IAB]
- 202 Could be Rachel from DMA?
- 17:02:23 [WileyS]
- Zakim, aaii is WileyS
- 17:02:23 [Zakim]
- +WileyS; got it
- 17:02:25 [Zakim]
- + +1.813.366.aajj
- 17:02:27 [Chris_IAB]
- I'm 212
- 17:02:34 [WileyS]
- I'm 408
- 17:02:36 [Zakim]
- + +1.916.641.aakk
- 17:02:41 [hefferjr]
- hefferjr has joined #dnt
- 17:02:42 [Zakim]
- + +1.425.269.aall
- 17:02:43 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aaaa is rachel_thomas
- 17:02:43 [Zakim]
- +rachel_thomas; got it
- 17:02:46 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 17:02:55 [Walter]
- Zakim: IPcaller is Walter
- 17:02:56 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aahh is lmastria
- 17:02:56 [Zakim]
- +lmastria; got it
- 17:02:56 [suegl]
- zakim, suegl is aall
- 17:02:57 [Zakim]
- sorry, suegl, I do not recognize a party named 'suegl'
- 17:03:00 [Joanne]
- Zakim, aakk is Joanne
- 17:03:00 [Zakim]
- +Joanne; got it
- 17:03:05 [Zakim]
- +Jonathan_Mayer
- 17:03:06 [bryan]
- bryan has joined #dnt
- 17:03:07 [npdoty]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:03:07 [moneill2]
- zakim, [IPcaller] is me
- 17:03:08 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted),
- 17:03:08 [Zakim]
- ... ??P10, Thomas (muted), lmastria, WileyS, +1.813.366.aajj, Joanne, +1.425.269.aall, [IPcaller], Jonathan_Mayer
- 17:03:08 [Zakim]
- [Google] has ifette
- 17:03:08 [Zakim]
- +moneill2; got it
- 17:03:12 [suegl]
- zakim, aall is suegl
- 17:03:13 [Zakim]
- +suegl; got it
- 17:03:14 [Walter]
- Zakim, IPcaller is Walter
- 17:03:14 [Zakim]
- sorry, Walter, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
- 17:03:20 [jmayer]
- jmayer has joined #dnt
- 17:03:21 [hefferjr]
- Zakim, aajj is hefferjr
- 17:03:21 [Zakim]
- +hefferjr; got it
- 17:03:32 [aleecia]
- Regrets+ tl, aleecia
- 17:03:38 [dsinger]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:03:38 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted),
- 17:03:41 [Zakim]
- ... ??P10, Thomas (muted), lmastria, WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, moneill2, Jonathan_Mayer
- 17:03:41 [Zakim]
- [Google] has ifette
- 17:03:43 [Walter]
- I'm on Skype
- 17:03:47 [Zakim]
- + +1.949.573.aamm
- 17:03:58 [fielding]
- zakim, aamm is fielding
- 17:03:58 [Zakim]
- +fielding; got it
- 17:04:05 [Walter]
- I told Zakim so
- 17:04:08 [Zakim]
- + +1.917.934.aann
- 17:04:08 [tlr]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:04:09 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted),
- 17:04:09 [Zakim]
- ... ??P10, Thomas (muted), lmastria, WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, moneill2, Jonathan_Mayer, fielding, +1.917.934.aann
- 17:04:09 [Zakim]
- [Google] has ifette
- 17:04:11 [Walter]
- but he didn't recognise that
- 17:04:13 [npdoty]
- Zakim, ??P10 is probably Walter
- 17:04:14 [Zakim]
- +Walter?; got it
- 17:04:17 [Walter]
- Zakim, IPcaller is Walter
- 17:04:20 [vinay]
- zakim, aann is vinay
- 17:04:20 [Zakim]
- sorry, Walter, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
- 17:04:20 [Zakim]
- +vinay; got it
- 17:04:31 [npdoty]
- schunter, ready whenever you are
- 17:04:40 [Walter]
- Zakim, Walter? is Walter
- 17:04:40 [Zakim]
- +Walter; got it
- 17:04:50 [schunter]
- Zakim still has punching-card-like command syntax. Lucky enough that the column does not matter.
- 17:05:08 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda?
- 17:05:08 [Zakim]
- I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
- 17:05:09 [Zakim]
- 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
- 17:05:09 [Zakim]
- 2. overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from npdoty]
- 17:05:09 [Zakim]
- 3. callers identified [from npdoty]
- 17:05:09 [Zakim]
- 4. new approach to exceptions [from npdoty]
- 17:05:09 [Zakim]
- 5. How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? [from npdoty]
- 17:05:09 [Zakim]
- 6. ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory? [from npdoty]
- 17:05:10 [Zakim]
- 7. ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between [from npdoty]
- 17:05:11 [Zakim]
- 8. Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs: [from npdoty]
- 17:05:35 [npdoty]
- schunter: after a little bit of time, back to the TPE document again, hope you all remember it
- 17:05:36 [Zakim]
- + +1.678.580.aaoo
- 17:05:41 [dsriedel]
- dsriedel has joined #dnt
- 17:05:49 [Brooks]
- Brooks has joined #dnt
- 17:05:50 [Zakim]
- + +1.425.214.aapp
- 17:05:50 [npdoty]
- ... goal is to look at all the open issues, make progress, assign actions
- 17:06:02 [npdoty]
- ... selection of a scribe? volunteers?
- 17:06:12 [bryan]
- zakim, aapp is bryan
- 17:06:12 [Zakim]
- +bryan; got it
- 17:06:13 [Brooks]
- 678 is Brooks
- 17:06:17 [tlr]
- zakim, aaoo is brooks
- 17:06:17 [Zakim]
- +brooks; got it
- 17:06:29 [rigo]
- zakim, pick a victim
- 17:06:29 [Zakim]
- Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ninjamarnau
- 17:06:33 [Zakim]
- + +49.721.83.aaqq
- 17:06:41 [dsriedel]
- zakim, aaqq is me
- 17:06:41 [Zakim]
- +dsriedel; got it
- 17:06:49 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 17:06:50 [npdoty]
- scribenick: ninjamarnau
- 17:06:58 [dsriedel]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:06:58 [Zakim]
- dsriedel should now be muted
- 17:06:59 [bryan]
- present+ Bryan_Sullivan
- 17:07:20 [npdoty]
- Zakim, take up agendum 2
- 17:07:20 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner" taken up [from npdoty]
- 17:07:23 [moneill2]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:07:23 [Zakim]
- moneill2 should now be muted
- 17:07:28 [rigo]
- zakim, aaqq is dsriedel
- 17:07:28 [Zakim]
- sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aaqq'
- 17:07:33 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 17:07:57 [rigo]
- zakim, who is here?
- 17:07:57 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see dsinger, schunter, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted), Walter, Thomas
- 17:07:59 [vincent]
- zakim [IPcaller] is vincent
- 17:08:00 [Zakim]
- ... (muted), lmastria, WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, moneill2 (muted), Jonathan_Mayer, fielding, vinay, brooks, bryan, dsriedel (muted), [IPcaller]
- 17:08:00 [Zakim]
- [Google] has ifette
- 17:08:00 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Brooks, dsriedel, jmayer, bryan, hefferjr, suegl, fielding, eberkower, ifette, vincent, vinay, jchester2, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, WileyS, ninjamarnau,
- 17:08:00 [Zakim]
- ... Joanne, BrendanIAB, sidstamm, Zakim, RRSAgent, npdoty, dsinger
- 17:08:08 [npdoty]
- justin has 4 actions, so we had better follow up with him offline
- 17:08:11 [vincent]
- zakim, [IPcaller] is vincent
- 17:08:11 [Zakim]
- +vincent; got it
- 17:08:21 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: Justin not on the call, I note it down, skpi his actions
- 17:08:26 [npdoty]
- amyc or others from Microsoft?
- 17:08:32 [ninjamarnau]
- ... amyc on the call?
- 17:08:48 [npdoty]
- action-131?
- 17:08:48 [trackbot]
- ACTION-131 -- Roy Fielding to sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource -- due 2012-11-03 -- OPEN
- 17:08:48 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/131
- 17:08:56 [ninjamarnau]
- ... ACTION 131 by roy:
- 17:09:17 [Zakim]
- + +385345aarr
- 17:09:33 [hwest]
- hwest has joined #dnt
- 17:09:34 [npdoty]
- this is attached to an issue that we have already closed
- 17:09:36 [npdoty]
- issue-124?
- 17:09:36 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-124 -- How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent (headers, URIs, ...)? -- closed
- 17:09:36 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124
- 17:09:42 [Zakim]
- +hwest
- 17:10:04 [ninjamarnau]
- fielding: suggest postponing until we have status tracking resources
- 17:10:22 [Walter]
- who is talking now?
- 17:11:17 [ninjamarnau]
- fielding: push it back 2 weeks
- 17:11:25 [npdoty]
- fielding, you're saying the spec should explain how a UA should make tracking status resource requests in a variety of cases
- 17:11:26 [rigo]
- no tom
- 17:11:37 [tlr]
- action-131 due 2012-11-21
- 17:11:37 [trackbot]
- ACTION-131 Sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource due date now 2012-11-21
- 17:11:41 [fielding]
- sorry for any background noise -- I am in Atlanta at the IETF meeting
- 17:11:56 [tlr]
- action-276?
- 17:11:56 [trackbot]
- ACTION-276 -- Luigi Mastria to provide text regarding data retention, applicable to finanical logging data -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
- 17:11:56 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/276
- 17:12:04 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: ACTION 276 on lou?
- 17:12:48 [rigo]
- q+
- 17:12:49 [Zakim]
- + +1.646.666.aass
- 17:12:53 [tlr]
- action-276 due 2012-11-21
- 17:12:53 [trackbot]
- ACTION-276 Provide text regarding data retention, applicable to finanical logging data due date now 2012-11-21
- 17:12:56 [npdoty]
- q+
- 17:12:56 [tlr]
- q?
- 17:13:00 [ninjamarnau]
- Luigi Mastria: I think it makes sense to push it couple of weeks
- 17:13:03 [jmayer]
- Is there any actual deadline for ISSUEs?
- 17:13:04 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 17:13:08 [Chapell]
- Chapell has joined #DNT
- 17:13:29 [jmayer]
- If a participant fails to complete a pending action for a month, they get a free two week extension?
- 17:13:54 [aleecia]
- Seeing only irc: issues ought to be closed if they are not getting work
- 17:14:13 [aleecia]
- Excuse me, *actions* not issues
- 17:14:28 [Walter]
- or at least pick up the beer tab at the next F2F
- 17:15:14 [aleecia]
- Issues do not have deadlines with them at present. But f2f AMS actions should just close if they do not have text now
- 17:15:15 [ninjamarnau]
- rigo: I have been on a meeting with the German toll collect. They presented retention classes. This could perhaps inspire Luigi
- 17:15:38 [npdoty]
- rigo, are you volunteering to propose some text as well?
- 17:15:50 [ninjamarnau]
- Luigi Mastria: appriciate the feedback. Will keep this in mind
- 17:15:55 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:16:02 [rigo]
- do retention classes instead of doing precise retention dates for financial data
- 17:16:03 [Walter]
- but I agree with aleecia and jmayer, this taking extremely long
- 17:16:08 [aleecia]
- Last week we delayed for NY having power outages. We are past time
- 17:16:42 [Walter]
- true
- 17:17:54 [tlr]
- action-273?
- 17:17:54 [trackbot]
- ACTION-273 -- Rob Sherman to propose text regarding multiple first parties -- due 2012-11-02 -- OPEN
- 17:17:54 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/273
- 17:17:56 [npdoty]
- npdoty: is this something we can pull from the DAA text? can others help you with this action from last month?
- 17:18:05 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 17:18:11 [Zakim]
- - +385345aarr
- 17:18:14 [tlr]
- action-273?
- 17:18:14 [trackbot]
- ACTION-273 -- Rob Sherman to propose text regarding multiple first parties -- due 2012-11-02 -- OPEN
- 17:18:14 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/273
- 17:18:15 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 17:18:15 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: 273 on Rob Sherman. Does not lokk like it.
- 17:18:23 [WileyS]
- Aleeca, rather than arbitrarily closing the issues, could we please put a due date on them and ask for volunteers to take over where others have not met their due date?
- 17:18:26 [tlr]
- ack thomas
- 17:18:29 [ninjamarnau]
- rigo: I volunteer to take this ACTION up.
- 17:18:30 [johnsimpson]
- johnsimpson has joined #dnt
- 17:18:30 [tlr]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0075.html
- 17:18:32 [dsinger]
- notes that there have been emails on the list on this subject
- 17:18:52 [npdoty]
- lmastria: not that simple, DAA program is a coherent whole in use in the US/EU/Canada, in current discussion but needs more time
- 17:18:59 [npdoty]
- q-
- 17:19:16 [ninjamarnau]
- rigo: text is ideal. We need to be contructive.
- 17:19:29 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: Will set the action to pending review.
- 17:19:33 [aleecia]
- Until we have text proposals for adoption, we're just gossiping. We need actual text we can adopt
- 17:19:35 [rigo]
- s/text is ideal/text is not ideal/
- 17:19:36 [Zakim]
- + +1.310.392.aatt
- 17:19:36 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:19:37 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 17:20:13 [johnsimpson]
- zakim, 310 392 aatt is johnsimpson
- 17:20:13 [Zakim]
- I don't understand '310 392 aatt is johnsimpson', johnsimpson
- 17:20:17 [ninjamarnau]
- rigo, could you exchange ideal to not ideal?
- 17:20:21 [tlr]
- zakim, aatt is johnsimpson
- 17:20:21 [Zakim]
- +johnsimpson; got it
- 17:20:21 [npdoty]
- q+
- 17:20:24 [WileyS]
- Aleecia, not sure what you mean by "gossiping" - simply requesting due dates, solid owners, opportunity to reassign if someone else in the working group feels its critical to their business/perspective
- 17:20:26 [fielding]
- already did that
- 17:20:30 [Walter]
- does a closed action mean that it can no longer be discusses?
- 17:20:31 [kj]
- kj has joined #dnt
- 17:20:33 [Walter]
- eh, discussed
- 17:20:40 [tlr]
- Walter, closing an action simply means that the action has been done.
- 17:20:46 [Walter]
- ok, thank you
- 17:20:50 [tlr]
- action = promise by somebody to do something by a certain date
- 17:20:50 [trackbot]
- Sorry, couldn't find =. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
- 17:20:56 [aleecia]
- And again, apologies I cannot join the call today by voice
- 17:21:02 [ninjamarnau]
- dsinger: suggest to leave the definition ACTION open.
- 17:21:03 [rigo]
- ninja, I did already
- 17:21:06 [Zakim]
- -dwainberg
- 17:21:11 [tlr]
- ack thomas
- 17:21:16 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:21:19 [tlr]
- action-268?
- 17:21:19 [trackbot]
- ACTION-268 -- David Singer to edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications -- due 2012-10-10 -- CLOSED
- 17:21:19 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/268
- 17:21:23 [tlr]
- action-268 closed
- 17:21:23 [trackbot]
- ACTION-268 Edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications closed
- 17:21:25 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:21:25 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 17:21:33 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: We will close 268 until we discover new inconsistencies
- 17:22:10 [ninjamarnau]
- npdoty: We need to make some changes. At least for 1st and 3rd
- 17:22:21 [Zakim]
- +dwainberg
- 17:22:30 [tlr]
- action-268 reopened
- 17:22:36 [tlr]
- trackbot, reopen action-268
- 17:22:36 [trackbot]
- ACTION-268 Edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications re-opened
- 17:22:37 [dsinger]
- TPE says "A companion document, [TRACKING-COMPLIANCE], defines many of the terms used here, notably 'party', 'first party', and 'third party'.
- 17:22:38 [dsinger]
- "
- 17:23:44 [Zakim]
- -hwest
- 17:23:58 [Zakim]
- +hwest
- 17:24:01 [rigo]
- I still think all lawyers in the room of at least 2 F2F meetings were telling leave "party" to the legal system and take whatever the legal system accepts as a party
- 17:24:04 [npdoty]
- fielding: I know what is implementable regarding parties, if the compliance spec is not consistent then it needs to be changed, but should clarify on the mailing list rather than an action for the editors
- 17:24:20 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: we do not have inconsistencies. But we have no machine implementable way to distinguish between first and third parties
- 17:24:28 [fielding]
- My issue is that the server cannot promise that it is the first party when it cannot know it is the first party. It can only promise how it was implemented.
- 17:24:43 [tlr]
- action-268 due next week
- 17:24:43 [trackbot]
- ACTION-268 Edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications due date now next week
- 17:24:57 [npdoty]
- dsinger, can we add notes to this action so we don't forget how to work on it?
- 17:24:57 [ninjamarnau]
- ... it is not the definition itself but the implementability. It is not Rob's job to solve that
- 17:25:06 [dsinger]
- I just did a small one.
- 17:25:16 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:25:21 [schunter]
- ack npdoty
- 17:25:22 [npdoty]
- q-
- 17:25:31 [Zakim]
- -moneill2
- 17:25:43 [Zakim]
- + +1.609.310.aauu
- 17:25:44 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: ACTION 249
- 17:25:49 [efelten_]
- Zakim aauu is me.
- 17:25:59 [npdoty]
- Zakim, aauu is efelten_
- 17:25:59 [Zakim]
- +efelten_; got it
- 17:26:16 [tlr]
- action-249?
- 17:26:16 [trackbot]
- ACTION-249 -- David Singer to ensure that the qualifiers reflect the permissions documented in the compliance document, due 10 october -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
- 17:26:16 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/249
- 17:26:23 [Zakim]
- +??P27
- 17:26:39 [Walter]
- Zakim, ??P27 is Walter
- 17:26:40 [Zakim]
- +Walter; got it
- 17:26:51 [npdoty]
- sounds good to me
- 17:27:00 [npdoty]
- q+
- 17:27:00 [ninjamarnau]
- ... suggest to put the current status of qualifiers in the spec and review it later.
- 17:27:04 [rigo]
- q+
- 17:27:15 [jmayer]
- q+
- 17:27:34 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:27:48 [ninjamarnau]
- dsinger: it is open if qualifiers are otional, mandataory, permitted.
- 17:27:58 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:28:03 [tlr]
- ack npdoty
- 17:28:06 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:28:10 [schunter]
- ack rigo
- 17:28:24 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: To answer Ian Fette, In Amsterdam we decided to have permitted qualifiers
- 17:28:31 [tlr]
- npdoty: We made a decision in Seattle that we would have qualifiers, and that they would be optional.
- 17:28:43 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:28:44 [ninjamarnau]
- npdoty: In Seattle decision were made that qualifiers are optional.
- 17:28:47 [fielding]
- and that they would only be in the representation.
- 17:29:18 [Zakim]
- -dwainberg
- 17:29:23 [tlr]
- rigo: This is only about the response?
- 17:29:23 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 17:29:25 [tlr]
- npdoty: correct
- 17:29:29 [rigo]
- ok
- 17:29:59 [npdoty]
- schunter: permitted in the uri, or also in the header? dsinger: both places
- 17:30:00 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:30:04 [schunter]
- ack jmayer
- 17:30:27 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 17:30:52 [Zakim]
- -sidstamm
- 17:31:04 [npdoty]
- jmayer: qualifiers that reflect the permitted uses would be optional; are there some qualifiers beyond that?
- 17:31:17 [rigo]
- interesting question: What do we do with syntax violations
- 17:31:23 [ninjamarnau]
- jmayer: my understanding in Seattle was that we had a consensus. Are you suggesting qualifiers for more than the permitted uses? I do not think we have consensus on that
- 17:31:50 [npdoty]
- jmayer, you're suggesting a sort of extensibility mechanism? I wouldn't object to additional non-conflicting characters that UAs could ignore
- 17:31:56 [fielding]
- I think the only qualifier we had consensus on was to remove "l" for local
- 17:32:12 [npdoty]
- does anyone have a use case for extensibility regarding qualifiers?
- 17:32:14 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: my understanding is that the TPE spec allows only for optional qualifiers for the permitted uses. Other would violate the Compliance spec.
- 17:32:23 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:32:28 [rigo]
- fielding: do we have a rule for syntax violations?
- 17:32:32 [ninjamarnau]
- ... dsinger got an action to synch both.
- 17:32:46 [tlr]
- action-317?
- 17:32:46 [trackbot]
- ACTION-317 -- David Singer to draft non-normative examples on same-party (issue-164) -- due 2012-10-12 -- OPEN
- 17:32:46 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/317
- 17:32:49 [ifette]
- Is someone recording and/or putting hte call on hold?
- 17:32:49 [Walter]
- Zakim, who is making noise?
- 17:32:50 [Chris_IAB]
- new noise on the call = beeping
- 17:32:52 [ifette]
- there's a beeping noise
- 17:32:59 [npdoty]
- so dsinger is going to update the TPE draft with those updated qualifiers, and point to the synchronization issue as they may change again
- 17:33:00 [Zakim]
- Walter, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: brooks (59%), dsinger (59%), schunter (30%)
- 17:33:02 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 17:33:14 [jmayer]
- So, to clarify, the qualifiers are *only* for the permitted uses provided in the Compliance document. A website cannot unilaterally declare a new qualifier (e.g. "ICANHAZTRACKING").
- 17:33:17 [Brooks]
- I am on mute
- 17:33:22 [laurengelman]
- laurengelman has joined #dnt
- 17:33:24 [tlr]
- ack thomas
- 17:33:35 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: I push it by a week. dsinger sent it by email but it got lost.
- 17:33:42 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:33:42 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 17:34:06 [rigo]
- zakim, who is muted?
- 17:34:06 [Zakim]
- I see jchester2, Thomas, dsriedel muted
- 17:34:08 [ninjamarnau]
- ... dsinger should feel free to send it to the list.
- 17:34:15 [johnsimpson]
- q?
- 17:34:26 [fielding]
- jmayer, the qualifiers are for the sole purpose of explaining what tracking is done within the scope of the TSV … David has suggested some changes to that purpose
- 17:34:57 [npdoty]
- action-287?
- 17:34:57 [trackbot]
- ACTION-287 -- Rachel Thomas to define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents. -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
- 17:34:57 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/287
- 17:35:00 [tlr]
- action-270?
- 17:35:00 [trackbot]
- ACTION-270 -- Rachel Thomas to propose existing DAA text for service providers -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
- 17:35:00 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/270
- 17:35:00 [npdoty]
- action-270?
- 17:35:00 [trackbot]
- ACTION-270 -- Rachel Thomas to propose existing DAA text for service providers -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
- 17:35:01 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/270
- 17:35:03 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: 2 ACTIONS on rachel_thomas
- 17:35:25 [npdoty]
- can someone drop a link to rachel's email?
- 17:35:33 [tlr]
- http://www.w3.org/mid/F7D4F7192203374D9821E66FADA2F10804B8CF9179@dma-ny-exch01.inside.the-dma.org
- 17:35:34 [ninjamarnau]
- rachel_thomas: I would like to have it noted in the records. There was lot of text on definitions on the list.
- 17:35:45 [tlr]
- and the subject had "ACTION 207", without a dash :)
- 17:35:51 [dwainberg]
- zakim, IPCaller is dwainberg
- 17:35:51 [Zakim]
- +dwainberg; got it
- 17:35:59 [tlr]
- ack thomas
- 17:36:00 [tlr]
- q+
- 17:36:10 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: I or npdoty will link the information and set the actions to pending review.
- 17:36:20 [jchester2]
- Clarification for Rachel: Is this a formal request by the DAA to have its definition considered, or just the DMA?
- 17:36:23 [tlr]
- action-287?
- 17:36:23 [trackbot]
- ACTION-287 -- Rachel Thomas to define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents. -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
- 17:36:23 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/287
- 17:36:34 [Walter]
- q+
- 17:36:35 [jchester2]
- +q
- 17:36:41 [jchester2]
- zakim, unmute me
- 17:36:41 [Zakim]
- jchester2 should no longer be muted
- 17:36:43 [ninjamarnau]
- rachel_thomas: On user expectation. I do not think I am the right person to work on this action.
- 17:36:57 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:37:02 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: Then I will close this action 287.
- 17:37:24 [dwainberg]
- That should be left open.
- 17:37:28 [Walter]
- +1
- 17:37:46 [johnsimpson]
- q?
- 17:37:47 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:38:09 [BrendanIAB]
- q+
- 17:38:09 [ninjamarnau]
- johnsimpson: Is this DAA text?
- 17:38:26 [Lmastria]
- Lmastria has joined #dnt
- 17:38:36 [jchester2]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:38:36 [Zakim]
- jchester2 should now be muted
- 17:38:40 [npdoty]
- q- jchester later
- 17:38:44 [npdoty]
- q+ jchester
- 17:38:45 [johnsimpson]
- no that was jeff chester, not me
- 17:38:48 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:38:49 [npdoty]
- q- Thomas
- 17:38:51 [npdoty]
- q+ Thomas
- 17:38:54 [fielding]
- s/johnsimpson/jchester2/
- 17:39:10 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: objections to close 287?
- 17:39:11 [jchester2]
- q-
- 17:39:23 [Walter]
- walter-
- 17:39:26 [tlr]
- q- walter
- 17:39:27 [Walter]
- q-
- 17:39:38 [npdoty]
- I had thought this was already assigned to BrendanIAB, but I guess I'm looking track of all out action items
- 17:39:41 [tlr]
- action-287?
- 17:39:41 [trackbot]
- ACTION-287 -- Brendan Riordan-Butterworth to define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents. -- due 2012-11-14 -- OPEN
- 17:39:41 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/287
- 17:39:57 [tlr]
- ack brendan
- 17:39:57 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:40:07 [npdoty]
- BrendanIAB: can look into this as part of reviewing consistency, will take over this action, have something within a week
- 17:40:08 [tlr]
- ack thomas
- 17:40:11 [npdoty]
- action-270?
- 17:40:11 [trackbot]
- ACTION-270 -- Rachel Thomas to propose existing DAA text for service providers -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
- 17:40:11 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/270
- 17:40:13 [jchester2]
- zakim, unmute me
- 17:40:13 [Zakim]
- jchester2 should no longer be muted
- 17:40:20 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: remains open. Now ACTION on BrendanIAB
- 17:40:20 [jchester2]
- +q
- 17:40:33 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: Back to ACTION 270
- 17:40:42 [fielding]
- regardless, the action is competed
- 17:40:58 [johnsimpson]
- suggest we close
- 17:41:03 [Walter]
- +1
- 17:41:05 [npdoty]
- "I think we will just withdraw this language as a potential replacement for what's in the spec today and see if we need to provide alternative text."
- 17:41:13 [ninjamarnau]
- tlr: The text that rachel_thomas proposed does not really fit. Does someone make another proposal? Or do we close it.
- 17:41:25 [npdoty]
- close action-270
- 17:41:25 [trackbot]
- ACTION-270 Propose existing DAA text for service providers closed
- 17:41:27 [tlr]
- action-270 closed
- 17:41:27 [trackbot]
- ACTION-270 Propose existing DAA text for service providers closed
- 17:41:28 [jchester2]
- -q
- 17:41:29 [ninjamarnau]
- rachel_thomas: I agree. We can close it.
- 17:41:33 [jchester2]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:41:33 [Zakim]
- jchester2 should now be muted
- 17:41:58 [dsinger]
- q+ to ask an editor question
- 17:41:59 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:42:00 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 17:42:16 [jchester2]
- Rachel: Could you clarify on the list. Are your proposals formally submitted by the DMA or by you on behalf of the DMA?
- 17:42:33 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:42:33 [jchester2]
- Rachel: Sorry I mean submitted by DAA.
- 17:42:36 [fielding]
- happy to drop my action if anyone else wants to write examples for TPE
- 17:42:39 [npdoty]
- schunter: encourage us to address actions promptly, so that we don't have so many overdue ones to go through
- 17:42:40 [npdoty]
- q?
- 17:42:43 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: We should take ACTION more serious. I ask you to update them before they are overdue.
- 17:42:52 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:42:55 [npdoty]
- ack dsinger
- 17:42:55 [Zakim]
- dsinger, you wanted to ask an editor question
- 17:43:12 [tlr]
- ACTION-270: this text will not be integrated into the document
- 17:43:12 [trackbot]
- ACTION-270 Propose existing DAA text for service providers notes added
- 17:43:12 [schunter]
- 1. Send email to list
- 17:43:17 [Walter]
- Zakim, mute me
- 17:43:17 [Zakim]
- Walter should now be muted
- 17:43:37 [npdoty]
- dsinger: a lot of emails going by, when should the editors add the text to the documents?
- 17:43:41 [ninjamarnau]
- dsinger: Unsure when text on the mailing list is final and can be included by the editors. I expect explicit instruction by the chairs.
- 17:44:02 [npdoty]
- schunter: you're right, we should put an action on the editors to do so
- 17:44:11 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: Once we decided on text we should but an action on the editors.
- 17:44:30 [tlr]
- ack thomas
- 17:44:42 [npdoty]
- rigo: up to the chairs to declare consensus, otherwise how would david know what to do?
- 17:44:54 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda?
- 17:44:54 [Zakim]
- I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
- 17:44:56 [Zakim]
- 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
- 17:44:56 [Zakim]
- 2. overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from npdoty]
- 17:44:56 [Zakim]
- 3. callers identified [from npdoty]
- 17:44:56 [Zakim]
- 4. new approach to exceptions [from npdoty]
- 17:44:56 [Zakim]
- 5. How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? [from npdoty]
- 17:44:56 [Zakim]
- 6. ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory? [from npdoty]
- 17:44:57 [Zakim]
- 7. ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between [from npdoty]
- 17:44:58 [Zakim]
- 8. Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs: [from npdoty]
- 17:45:00 [npdoty]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:45:00 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see dsinger, schunter, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, ninjamarnau, eberkower, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted), Walter (muted), Thomas, lmastria,
- 17:45:03 [Zakim]
- ... WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, Jonathan_Mayer, fielding, vinay, brooks, bryan, dsriedel (muted), vincent, +1.646.666.aass, johnsimpson, hwest, efelten_, Walter.a, dwainberg,
- 17:45:03 [Zakim]
- ... ??P9
- 17:45:03 [Zakim]
- [Google] has ifette
- 17:45:13 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 17:45:13 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 17:45:14 [dwainberg]
- dwainberg has left #dnt
- 17:45:23 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: quick check that all callers are identified.
- 17:45:26 [Chapell]
- 646 is chapell
- 17:45:29 [laurengelman]
- i am one
- 17:45:36 [tlr]
- zakim, aass is Chapell
- 17:45:36 [Zakim]
- +Chapell; got it
- 17:45:38 [laurengelman]
- i think i'm the VOIP
- 17:45:44 [tlr]
- zakim, ??P9 is laurengelman
- 17:45:44 [Zakim]
- +laurengelman; got it
- 17:45:49 [Chapell]
- thanks tlr
- 17:45:55 [Zakim]
- -Walter.a
- 17:45:57 [npdoty]
- Zakim, take up agendum 4
- 17:45:57 [Zakim]
- agendum 4. "new approach to exceptions" taken up [from npdoty]
- 17:46:02 [dwainberg]
- dwainberg has joined #dnt
- 17:46:13 [npdoty]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0514.html
- 17:46:20 [Zakim]
- +??P27
- 17:46:26 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: discussion on the new approach on decisions we presented in Amsterdam.
- 17:46:30 [Walter]
- Zakim, ??p27 is Walter
- 17:46:30 [Zakim]
- +Walter; got it
- 17:47:32 [ifette]
- Fair warning, I have a conflicting meeting in 13 minutes and will need to drop off
- 17:48:44 [ninjamarnau]
- ifette: UA should confirm exceptions with the user. The big change is on UAs to store exceptions
- 17:48:50 [jmayer]
- Off to class again, later all.
- 17:48:55 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:48:56 [Zakim]
- -Jonathan_Mayer
- 17:49:15 [WileyS]
- Ian - is the Server notified if the user rejects the exception upon UA interaction?
- 17:49:20 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:49:22 [ifette]
- Shane, no.
- 17:49:31 [ifette]
- Because it's not considered "rejecting"
- 17:49:34 [ninjamarnau]
- ... if the UA has the option to implement notifications to the user about change of exception status
- 17:49:37 [ifette]
- it's considered deleting a previously granted exception
- 17:49:41 [tlr]
- ack w
- 17:49:42 [ifette]
- just like the user could delete an exception at any time
- 17:49:43 [schunter]
- ack WileyS
- 17:49:49 [ifette]
- q+
- 17:50:06 [ninjamarnau]
- WileyS: I think this is vital. But the server needs to know that it received an exception.
- 17:50:10 [dwainberg]
- q+
- 17:50:15 [npdoty]
- q+ new normative/non-normative requirements
- 17:50:32 [ifette]
- queue=ifette,dwainberg,npdoty
- 17:50:44 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:50:47 [ninjamarnau]
- ... We should think how this can be validated for the sites. This is a matter of synching.
- 17:50:53 [efelten_]
- Doesn't the server find out when it receives DNT:0 in the future?
- 17:50:54 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:50:58 [vincent]
- q+
- 17:51:05 [rigo]
- ed, exactly my question too
- 17:51:05 [dsinger]
- I think we made sure that there were ways to confirm the existence of an exception that the server thought had previously been granted; I agree
- 17:51:17 [ifette]
- ed, yes
- 17:51:28 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: Do people prefer this approach in general?
- 17:51:32 [ifette]
- this is just a special case of the user revoking an exception at any random time
- 17:51:45 [fielding]
- efelten_, the third party would find out … it would be useful if the first party knows as well, but I think that will have to handled OOB
- 17:51:46 [dsinger]
- to ifette, yes, exactly
- 17:51:47 [rigo]
- I heard only positive remarks so far
- 17:51:50 [ninjamarnau]
- ... should we pursue this direction?
- 17:51:58 [WileyS]
- Fair - so if the Server continues to receive DNT:1 after receiving a user granted exception, it should keep requesting the exception from the user.
- 17:52:01 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:52:02 [ifette]
- correct
- 17:52:05 [ifette]
- shane, correct
- 17:52:12 [WileyS]
- Ian, okay
- 17:52:13 [dsinger]
- as long as it's now clear that the server is solely responsible for the user communication, I think this a great improvement
- 17:52:18 [rigo]
- shane, that was my assumption
- 17:52:41 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:52:43 [ifette]
- q-
- 17:52:47 [rigo]
- revoking exception is sending DNT;1
- 17:52:54 [rigo]
- IMHO
- 17:52:55 [schunter]
- ack dwainberg
- 17:52:56 [WileyS]
- rigo, yet - we're clear on that now
- 17:53:03 [ninjamarnau]
- ifette: Whatever road we follow, we need to make sure the user can revoke his exceptions. And the server needs to know.
- 17:53:05 [WileyS]
- Rigo, yep - we're clear on that now
- 17:53:20 [rigo]
- WileyS: verify that this is in the text!
- 17:53:33 [ninjamarnau]
- dwainberg: I lost track on how web-wide exceptions are handled.
- 17:53:52 [ninjamarnau]
- schunter: I think both work with this new proposal.
- 17:54:21 [rigo]
- dwainberg: which parties could request exception
- 17:54:36 [rigo]
- dsinger, if something is prevented to get to the user
- 17:54:50 [WileyS]
- +q
- 17:54:52 [ninjamarnau]
- rigo, did you take over?
- 17:54:58 [npdoty]
- or use an iframe
- 17:54:59 [rigo]
- not yet
- 17:55:06 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:55:09 [WileyS]
- Can we confirm iFrames are fine?
- 17:55:17 [rigo]
- Text!!
- 17:55:21 [BrendanIAB]
- My understanding of the proposal is that the preference store is moved from client side to server side.
- 17:55:23 [dsinger]
- yes, iFrames are fine
- 17:55:31 [WileyS]
- There was discussion on the mailing list that this broke the top origin rule.
- 17:55:36 [BrendanIAB]
- If that happens, how does the server side re-identify users with preferences?
- 17:55:36 [rigo]
- action to do the text?
- 17:55:36 [trackbot]
- Sorry, couldn't find to. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
- 17:55:36 [dsriedel]
- yes, clarification would be fine, a practical example on this
- 17:55:37 [Chapell]
- Yes - I think an example would be helpful
- 17:55:39 [npdoty]
- BrendanIAB, no, I think this is a proposal specifically for storing it on the client
- 17:55:42 [ninjamarnau]
- rigo, please take over scribing. I need to leave. Sorry.
- 17:55:43 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:55:45 [Chapell]
- @ Wainberg - happy to help draft
- 17:55:47 [npdoty]
- scribenick: rigo
- 17:55:50 [Chris_IAB]
- how would a 3rd party do the messaging, independent of the 1st party?
- 17:55:50 [BrendanIAB]
- Oh. I thought that was the original design...?
- 17:55:51 [dsriedel]
- publisher perspective would be interesting in this aspect
- 17:55:52 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute me
- 17:55:52 [Zakim]
- Thomas should no longer be muted
- 17:56:04 [rigo]
- schunter: debugging text, is not perfect yet
- 17:56:11 [WileyS]
- I proposed non-normative text (an example) of the iFrame approach and was told this breaks the top level origin rule. Need to confirm this is NOT the case.
- 17:56:14 [dsinger]
- s/prevented to the user/presented to the user/
- 17:56:14 [Chapell]
- @dwainberg - happy to help
- 17:56:36 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:56:41 [npdoty]
- action: wainberg to draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell)
- 17:56:41 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-331 - Draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell) [on David Wainberg - due 2012-11-14].
- 17:56:44 [tlr]
- ACTION: dwainberg to review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes
- 17:56:44 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-332 - Review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes [on David Wainberg - due 2012-11-14].
- 17:56:45 [rigo]
- tlr: dwainberg wants to check the text, mainly that iframes are fine and that the signal back is done by DNT signal
- 17:56:47 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:56:53 [tlr]
- action-332 due 2012-11-21
- 17:56:54 [trackbot]
- ACTION-332 Review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes due date now 2012-11-21
- 17:57:02 [npdoty]
- close action-331
- 17:57:02 [trackbot]
- ACTION-331 Draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell) closed
- 17:57:16 [npdoty]
- action-332: chapell volunteers to help, wileys may also be interested
- 17:57:16 [trackbot]
- ACTION-332 Review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes notes added
- 17:57:21 [rigo]
- schunter: does somebody object to go with the updated exception proposal?
- 17:57:21 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:57:34 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:57:38 [rigo]
- ... so far haven't seen any objection?
- 17:57:40 [BrendanIAB]
- q+
- 17:57:41 [schunter]
- ack npdoty
- 17:57:44 [vincent]
- q-
- 17:58:01 [Lmastria]
- q+
- 17:58:21 [ifette]
- That's not a UI requirement
- 17:58:39 [ifette]
- the detail can be used for reviewing exceptions later on
- 17:58:39 [rigo]
- npdoty: changes are additonal requirements, you must store the exception without checking with the user, the site naming issue
- 17:58:48 [schunter]
- q?
- 17:58:50 [rigo]
- .. not sure this apporach is preventing that
- 17:58:50 [tlr]
- npdoty: we have some stuff that was intended for UI, which seems inconsistent with the UI
- 17:59:15 [BrendanIAB]
- q-
- 17:59:21 [rigo]
- ifette: the UA can look at exceptions and can revoke them
- 17:59:25 [ifette]
- I do apologize, but I have to drop off the call
- 17:59:34 [Zakim]
- -bryan
- 17:59:55 [ifette]
- Ideally "a website called this method" is equivalent to "a user's preference"
- 17:59:58 [ifette]
- If not, that's a problem
- 18:00:01 [rigo]
- npdoty: do we say that DNT:0 means only that a site stored an exception?
- 18:00:03 [ifette]
- but agree they need to match up somehow in the text
- 18:00:04 [rigo]
- q+
- 18:00:05 [ifette]
- have to drop,s orry
- 18:00:05 [dsinger]
- is that a question in any way related to the question at hand?
- 18:00:10 [Zakim]
- -[Google]
- 18:00:12 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:00:49 [schunter]
- ack WileyS
- 18:00:54 [tlr]
- npdoty: consistency between DNT:0 and user exceptions?
- 18:01:00 [rigo]
- npdoty: if UA is still responsible for making sure that DNT:0 is still a user preference, than I'm fine with it. If not than not
- 18:01:16 [dsinger]
- got it, dnt:0 is now the *server's* responsibility to make sure it reflects the user intention
- 18:02:00 [rigo]
- WileyS: provided non-normative text and had feedback that it broke top level same origin rule. Seems supportive in IRC, want a definitive response
- 18:02:03 [npdoty]
- npdoty: whether this has a change on DNT:0 semantics is important, that's what makes the difference with whether I think this is a good approach to take. if it's not the UA's responsibility, then servers may need to constantly doublecheck the validity of a dnt:0.
- 18:02:18 [dwainberg]
- q?
- 18:02:19 [rigo]
- dsinger: it is the ??? can you clarify?? It ought to work
- 18:02:26 [dwainberg]
- q+
- 18:02:43 [rigo]
- WileyS: if one domain registers exceptions for other domains
- 18:02:46 [rigo]
- dsinger: yes
- 18:02:48 [schunter]
- ack Lmastria
- 18:03:06 [rigo]
- Lmastria: are we opening UI here?
- 18:03:23 [dsinger]
- yes, the applicable site is the document-origin of the script, so iFrames should work. please note if the spec. says something to the contrary
- 18:03:23 [npdoty]
- this does add a new requirement that a UA can't provide synchronous UI
- 18:03:43 [npdoty]
- but continues to avoid any details about what UI a UA would ever have to show
- 18:04:02 [dsinger]
- yes, the site-exception request can be site-wide or name explicit third-parties, and the UA is allowed to 'widen' an explicit list to site-wide (and tell the caller); that remains, as I understand, in this new proposal
- 18:04:09 [rigo]
- schunter: it is explicit that UA can do whatever they want. Site has to make sure that it only stores exceptions that it really has. UA can still check
- 18:04:10 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:04:22 [schunter]
- ack rigo
- 18:04:24 [Chris_IAB]
- Lou, I can work with you on that :)
- 18:04:40 [Zakim]
- -ninjamarnau
- 18:05:34 [ifette]
- ifette has joined #dnt
- 18:05:50 [npdoty]
- we never had a requirement that the UA had to pop up a UI
- 18:05:55 [dsinger]
- q+
- 18:06:00 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:06:01 [tlr]
- ack dwainberg
- 18:06:04 [schunter]
- ack dwainberg
- 18:06:09 [rigo]
- no, but "make sure it is a preference"
- 18:06:09 [schunter]
- ack dsinger
- 18:06:10 [tlr]
- q+ dwainberg
- 18:06:48 [dwainberg]
- dwainberg has left #dnt
- 18:06:57 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:07:02 [rigo]
- dsinger: general preference is UA and exception is the responsibility of the site. We need more editiing. I don't think we captured that idea
- 18:07:09 [npdoty]
- q- dwainberg
- 18:07:17 [dsinger]
- to note that the 'general preference' is the responsibility of the UA, and exception-preferences are the responsibility of the sites, to verify that they reflect the user's intent
- 18:07:18 [dsinger]
- also that the server has to re-ask that if the exception disappears
- 18:07:19 [dwainberg]
- dwainberg has joined #dnt
- 18:07:43 [Lmastria]
- my apologies, but i need to drop ... thank you
- 18:07:43 [dsinger]
- suggest an action on me to integrate Adrian, Ian, and Nick's texts, into a new document
- 18:07:47 [npdoty]
- q+ to repeat my objection in case schunter couldn't hear it
- 18:07:49 [Zakim]
- -laurengelman
- 18:08:09 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:08:10 [Zakim]
- -lmastria
- 18:08:12 [rigo]
- schunter: suggest to replace the old exception text with ifette's text. And start working from there
- 18:08:42 [rigo]
- npdoty: uncertain about it. I don't think it is a good idea.
- 18:08:47 [dsinger]
- q+ to try to answer Nick
- 18:08:54 [rigo]
- ... we should not lose what DNT:0 means
- 18:09:01 [Zakim]
- + +1.917.318.aavv
- 18:09:04 [npdoty]
- ack npdoty
- 18:09:04 [Zakim]
- npdoty, you wanted to repeat my objection in case schunter couldn't hear it
- 18:09:08 [Zakim]
- -Chapell
- 18:09:33 [npdoty]
- npdoty: wanted to be clear about my concerns, expressed in Amsterdam and again today
- 18:09:40 [Zakim]
- +aleecia
- 18:09:54 [Chapell]
- zakim, aavv is chapell
- 18:09:54 [Zakim]
- +chapell; got it
- 18:09:56 [npdoty]
- ... 1) that it's not clear who is responsible for a DNT:0 or what DNT:0 will continue to mean in that case, which I think would be a great loss
- 18:09:57 [aleecia]
- Zakim, mute me
- 18:09:57 [Zakim]
- aleecia should now be muted
- 18:10:02 [Walter]
- q+
- 18:10:23 [npdoty]
- ... and 2) that it's dangerous for an API to store this and require that the user cannot be part of the interaction
- 18:10:35 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:10:41 [schunter]
- ack dsinger
- 18:10:41 [Zakim]
- dsinger, you wanted to try to answer Nick
- 18:10:42 [dsinger]
- I think the spec. needs to be clear that a DNT signal that results from a general preference MUST reflect the user's intent as determined by the UA, and that a DNT signal sent as a result of an exception call MUST reflect user intent as determined by the SITE. It's not tied to DNT:0, but to the origin of the signal.
- 18:10:42 [rigo]
- schunter: specific issue: current text that UA must ?? request. Guiding principle is that DNT signal should correspond to the user preference. Should follow that here. UA is responsible to store the right thing. UA can check. But this is the debugging we need
- 18:10:50 [npdoty]
- schunter: agree, but think it's just a question of debugging on the text
- 18:11:26 [rigo]
- dsinger: answer to npdoty DNT - signal as a preference is responsible for the UA, exception signal is result of site
- 18:11:27 [schunter]
- ack Walter
- 18:11:27 [npdoty]
- the DNT:0 cancels out the DNT:1 though
- 18:11:30 [rigo]
- q+
- 18:11:41 [Brooks]
- cylon
- 18:11:45 [eberkower]
- LOL
- 18:11:45 [Zakim]
- -vinay
- 18:11:52 [dwainberg]
- old school cylon
- 18:11:55 [npdoty]
- Zakim, drop Walter
- 18:11:55 [Zakim]
- Walter is being disconnected
- 18:11:56 [Zakim]
- -Walter
- 18:11:57 [Zakim]
- -hwest
- 18:11:59 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:12:06 [dsinger]
- zakim, who is making noise?
- 18:12:07 [schunter]
- ack rigo
- 18:12:08 [Zakim]
- -Walter.a
- 18:12:11 [npdoty]
- Walter, please call back, we couldn't hear you
- 18:12:16 [npdoty]
- ack rigo
- 18:12:18 [Zakim]
- dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (30%), Thomas (20%)
- 18:12:22 [schunter]
- Zakim, mute me
- 18:12:22 [Zakim]
- schunter should now be muted
- 18:12:24 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 18:12:24 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 18:12:33 [dsinger]
- q?
- 18:12:37 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 18:12:38 [schunter]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 18:12:38 [Zakim]
- schunter should no longer be muted
- 18:12:54 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:12:59 [moneill2]
- zakim, [IPcaller] is me
- 18:12:59 [Zakim]
- +moneill2; got it
- 18:13:38 [rigo]
- zakim, mute me
- 18:13:38 [Zakim]
- Rigo should now be muted
- 18:13:55 [npdoty]
- rigo: it's really okay for the DPAs, because the responsibility is with the correct party, the general preference is with the browser and the exception is with the site
- 18:13:57 [rigo]
- RRSAgent: please draft minutes
- 18:13:57 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-minutes.html rigo
- 18:14:04 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:14:09 [npdoty]
- q+
- 18:14:56 [rigo]
- schunter: want that people respond to Ian's message. New approach has shortcomings. New one has to be even better than the old ones addressing all concerns
- 18:15:01 [schunter]
- ack npdoty
- 18:15:36 [rigo]
- npdoty: clarify, not prefer new approach. Think that new approach is a dangerous path.
- 18:15:40 [fielding]
- npdoty, note that sending DNT:0 instead of DNT:1 is never dangerous for the user -- this is not a security protocol. The only danger would be to a site that caused a false signal to be set and then made improper decisions based on the false signal.
- 18:16:18 [rigo]
- schunter: keep the old text as an option? And in one or two weeks you see if your concerns are resolved and in two weeks we see whether it works out
- 18:16:30 [dsinger]
- action: singer to work with Ian's text, Adrian's text, and Nick's cleanup to produce a new exception API proposed specification
- 18:16:31 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-333 - Work with Ian's text, Adrian's text, and Nick's cleanup to produce a new exception API proposed specification [on David Singer - due 2012-11-14].
- 18:16:34 [rigo]
- npdoty: only a couple of things that are controversial
- 18:16:49 [npdoty]
- fielding, I meant a dangerous way of deciding and sending signals, not that it's a security risk to send DNT:0
- 18:16:53 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 18:17:01 [Walter]
- zakim, IPcaller is Walter
- 18:17:01 [Zakim]
- +Walter; got it
- 18:17:15 [tlr]
- +1 to Nick and David working out the mechanics.
- 18:17:23 [rigo]
- Decision: dsinger to include Ian Fette's text into the document and work with Nick to figure which old text should remain
- 18:17:30 [Zakim]
- +vinay
- 18:17:32 [Walter]
- q+
- 18:17:34 [npdoty]
- I'm fine with whatever the editors think is the best editorial method, I just wanted to note the concern
- 18:17:54 [rigo]
- q+
- 18:17:54 [npdoty]
- I'll also follow up with my concerns on the mailing list
- 18:17:58 [Zakim]
- -rachel_thomas
- 18:18:00 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:18:02 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 18:18:23 [npdoty]
- rigo: I think we should open an issue around this
- 18:18:31 [npdoty]
- don't we have an issue on the exceptions API?
- 18:18:52 [tlr]
- ack thomas
- 18:19:09 [rigo]
- but you can't attach actions to actions
- 18:19:22 [npdoty]
- issue-144?
- 18:19:22 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-144 -- User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests? -- open
- 18:19:22 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
- 18:19:29 [rigo]
- tlr: let nick and dsinger figure it out
- 18:19:34 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 18:19:34 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 18:19:46 [rigo]
- schunter: prefer issue. will create issue and attach actions
- 18:19:50 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:19:52 [tlr]
- we have issue-144 already....
- 18:19:56 [schunter]
- ack Walter
- 18:20:10 [npdoty]
- schunter, rigo, we have issue 144 already which looks to be very relevant
- 18:20:41 [rigo]
- Walter: would prefer exceptions and responses to exceptions to be fiully machine readable
- 18:20:55 [rigo]
- ... and with javascript that risks not to work
- 18:21:19 [rigo]
- ... unless we could define the javascript in a way that is machine readable
- 18:21:22 [Walter]
- machine readable in the sense that it is accountable
- 18:21:27 [rigo]
- npdoty: I think it works
- 18:21:31 [dsinger]
- walter, I don't understand. could you write a discussion email of your concerns?
- 18:21:35 [dwainberg]
- seems like that would be up to UAs if they want to create some sort of log, right?
- 18:21:46 [schunter]
- Zakim, mute me
- 18:21:46 [Zakim]
- schunter should now be muted
- 18:22:24 [rigo]
- Walter: his and her preferences are stored. It may not be stored ...
- 18:22:33 [schunter]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 18:22:33 [Zakim]
- schunter should no longer be muted
- 18:22:36 [Walter]
- dsinger: I will
- 18:22:36 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:22:36 [rigo]
- npdoty: Walter, lets take that to the mailing list
- 18:22:44 [npdoty]
- npdoty: I think you can still have a UA that acts that way (no exceptions, all exceptions), using JavaScript, follow up on mailing list
- 18:22:49 [npdoty]
- Zakim, agenda?
- 18:22:49 [Zakim]
- I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
- 18:22:51 [Zakim]
- 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
- 18:22:51 [Zakim]
- 2. overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from npdoty]
- 18:22:51 [Zakim]
- 3. callers identified [from npdoty]
- 18:22:51 [Zakim]
- 4. new approach to exceptions [from npdoty]
- 18:22:51 [Zakim]
- 5. How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? [from npdoty]
- 18:22:51 [Zakim]
- 6. ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory? [from npdoty]
- 18:22:52 [Zakim]
- 7. ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between [from npdoty]
- 18:22:52 [Zakim]
- 8. Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs: [from npdoty]
- 18:22:54 [rigo]
- zakim, close agendum 4
- 18:22:54 [Zakim]
- agendum 4, new approach to exceptions, closed
- 18:22:55 [Zakim]
- I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 18:22:55 [Zakim]
- 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
- 18:23:09 [rigo]
- zakim, take up agendum 5
- 18:23:09 [Zakim]
- agendum 5. "How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?" taken up [from npdoty]
- 18:23:13 [dsinger]
- issue-112?
- 18:23:13 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-112 -- How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? -- pending review
- 18:23:13 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
- 18:23:15 [dwainberg]
- q+
- 18:23:37 [rigo]
- schunter: one was to use cookie like tools..
- 18:23:55 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:24:03 [rigo]
- .. this is for site wide exception, domain matiching is broken, with all subdomains listed
- 18:24:06 [schunter]
- ack dwainberg
- 18:24:08 [WileyS]
- The List is too difficult to manage - use wild cards: *.yahoo.com
- 18:24:15 [rigo]
- ... current approach in the Specification is list of all subdomains
- 18:24:33 [rigo]
- dwainberg: clear from past conversation, we need wildcard
- 18:24:40 [vinay]
- +1 to Shane. That and the list changes (like the addition of a new site)
- 18:24:42 [moneill2]
- is this about the targets?
- 18:24:44 [WileyS]
- For a web site like wordpress, they should NOT use wildcards
- 18:25:00 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:25:03 [WileyS]
- Matthias, not sure what you mean by "cookie rule"?
- 18:25:03 [rigo]
- schunter: does wildcard mean cookie rules or different?
- 18:25:10 [rigo]
- ack WileyS
- 18:25:12 [fielding]
- they do not imply the same thing
- 18:25:27 [WileyS]
- I have proposed text already out there
- 18:25:29 [tl]
- tl has joined #dnt
- 18:25:30 [WileyS]
- +q
- 18:25:30 [dsinger]
- q+
- 18:25:42 [rigo]
- schunter: if no action is created, we keep the text
- 18:25:42 [schunter]
- ack WileyS
- 18:26:07 [rigo]
- WileyS: it is several month old, but covers suffixes and where wild cards are allowed
- 18:26:10 [rigo]
- q+
- 18:26:18 [npdoty]
- apologies, I'm getting caught up on the conversation from July
- 18:26:24 [fielding]
- we could allow *.[www.]?{origin domain}
- 18:26:24 [dsinger]
- there are a lot of emails linked to the issue
- 18:26:29 [rigo]
- ... don't know where this action was related to
- 18:26:40 [npdoty]
- I wasn't aware of a concrete proposal
- 18:26:43 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:26:44 [dsinger]
- q?
- 18:26:50 [schunter]
- ack dsinger
- 18:27:24 [rigo]
- dsinger: 2 questions: Can you ask for an exception for a bunch of third parties sites that have wildcards on
- 18:27:30 [moneill2]
- Ians version cannot do that
- 18:27:43 [WileyS]
- David - yes, that's the one
- 18:27:43 [rigo]
- ... 2/ ?? which first parties are we talking about
- 18:27:45 [npdoty]
- agree that there's a distinction between expanding 1st party and expanding 3rd party; I noted that here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Aug/0191.html
- 18:27:50 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:27:52 [moneill2]
- no first party string parameter
- 18:28:03 [rigo]
- ack ri
- 18:28:05 [Zakim]
- -suegl
- 18:29:45 [npdoty]
- rigo: relates to our conversation about transitive permissions in the auction model, and our conversations at least as far back as DC
- 18:29:52 [npdoty]
- ... if it makes it easier for implementers, all the better
- 18:30:00 [npdoty]
- ... should clarify what we mean when we say it's the same party
- 18:30:02 [npdoty]
- q+
- 18:30:03 [rigo]
- shane?
- 18:30:17 [WileyS]
- Rigo?
- 18:30:22 [rigo]
- ack npdoty
- 18:30:24 [WileyS]
- Okay - thank you Nick
- 18:30:34 [WileyS]
- I thought it was already concrete :-)
- 18:30:43 [WileyS]
- Nick can have it
- 18:30:46 [Zakim]
- -jchester2
- 18:31:04 [rigo]
- npdoty: go back with Shane and take action to clear that
- 18:31:14 [efelten_]
- efelten_ has left #dnt
- 18:31:26 [rigo]
- npdoty will create the action
- 18:31:32 [Zakim]
- -efelten_
- 18:31:46 [rigo]
- schunter: will push the remaining issues to the call next week
- 18:31:48 [npdoty]
- action: doty to re-update on handling of sub-domains, clarify concrete options (issue-112, perhaps with Shane)
- 18:31:48 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-334 - Re-update on handling of sub-domains, clarify concrete options (issue-112, perhaps with Shane) [on Nick Doty - due 2012-11-14].
- 18:31:50 [schunter]
- q?
- 18:31:55 [rigo]
- schunter: Any other business?
- 18:31:59 [rigo]
- nope
- 18:32:00 [Zakim]
- -moneill2
- 18:32:11 [Zakim]
- -vinay
- 18:32:13 [Zakim]
- -dsriedel
- 18:32:13 [Zakim]
- -Joanne
- 18:32:14 [Zakim]
- -hefferjr
- 18:32:14 [Zakim]
- -WileyS
- 18:32:16 [Zakim]
- -eberkower
- 18:32:16 [Zakim]
- -brooks
- 18:32:17 [Zakim]
- -schunter
- 18:32:18 [Zakim]
- -BrendanIAB?
- 18:32:19 [Zakim]
- -dsinger
- 18:32:19 [Zakim]
- -fielding
- 18:32:19 [rigo]
- Meeting next week on compliance -- adjourned
- 18:32:20 [Zakim]
- -dwainberg
- 18:32:20 [Zakim]
- -vincent
- 18:32:20 [Zakim]
- -npdoty
- 18:32:20 [Zakim]
- -Walter
- 18:32:22 [Zakim]
- -johnsimpson
- 18:32:22 [Zakim]
- -Thomas
- 18:32:25 [Zakim]
- -Rigo
- 18:32:30 [Zakim]
- -aleecia
- 18:32:34 [Zakim]
- -chapell
- 18:32:56 [johnsimpson]
- johnsimpson has left #dnt
- 18:33:14 [npdoty]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 18:33:21 [npdoty]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 18:33:21 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been dsinger, schunter, Rigo, +1.202.478.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, +1.212.380.aabb, +1.408.260.aacc, sidstamm, +49.431.98.aadd, ninjamarnau,
- 18:33:25 [Zakim]
- ... +1.813.366.aaee, +1.646.801.aaff, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, +1.510.859.aagg, jchester2, eberkower, npdoty, ifette, Thomas, +1.212.768.aahh, +1.408.349.aaii, WileyS,
- 18:33:25 [Zakim]
- ... +1.813.366.aajj, +1.916.641.aakk, +1.425.269.aall, rachel_thomas, lmastria, Joanne, Jonathan_Mayer, moneill2, suegl, hefferjr, +1.949.573.aamm, fielding, +1.917.934.aann,
- 18:33:29 [Zakim]
- ... vinay, Walter, +1.678.580.aaoo, +1.425.214.aapp, bryan, brooks, +49.721.83.aaqq, dsriedel, vincent, +385345aarr, hwest, +1.646.666.aass, +1.310.392.aatt, johnsimpson,
- 18:33:29 [Zakim]
- ... +1.609.310.aauu, efelten_, Chapell, laurengelman, +1.917.318.aavv, aleecia
- 18:33:31 [Chris_IAB]
- npdoty?
- 18:33:36 [rigo]
- rrsagent, please draft minutes
- 18:33:36 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-minutes.html rigo
- 18:33:48 [rigo]
- trackbot, end meeting
- 18:33:48 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 18:33:48 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been dsinger, schunter, Rigo, +1.202.478.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, +1.212.380.aabb, +1.408.260.aacc, sidstamm, +49.431.98.aadd, ninjamarnau,
- 18:33:52 [Zakim]
- ... +1.813.366.aaee, +1.646.801.aaff, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, +1.510.859.aagg, jchester2, eberkower, npdoty, ifette, Thomas, +1.212.768.aahh, +1.408.349.aaii, WileyS,
- 18:33:52 [Zakim]
- ... +1.813.366.aajj, +1.916.641.aakk, +1.425.269.aall, rachel_thomas, lmastria, Joanne, Jonathan_Mayer, moneill2, suegl, hefferjr, +1.949.573.aamm, fielding, +1.917.934.aann,
- 18:33:56 [Zakim]
- ... vinay, Walter, +1.678.580.aaoo, +1.425.214.aapp, bryan, brooks, +49.721.83.aaqq, dsriedel, vincent, +385345aarr, hwest, +1.646.666.aass, +1.310.392.aatt, johnsimpson,
- 18:33:56 [Zakim]
- ... +1.609.310.aauu, efelten_, Chapell, laurengelman, +1.917.318.aavv, aleecia
- 18:33:56 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 18:33:56 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-minutes.html trackbot
- 18:33:57 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-actions.rdf :
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wainberg to draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell) [1]
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T17-56-41
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: dwainberg to review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes [2]
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T17-56-44
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: singer to work with Ian's text, Adrian's text, and Nick's cleanup to produce a new exception API proposed specification [3]
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T18-16-30
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: doty to re-update on handling of sub-domains, clarify concrete options (issue-112, perhaps with Shane) [4]
- 18:33:57 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T18-31-48