IRC log of dnt on 2013-12-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:56:45 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:56:45 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-dnt-irc
16:56:47 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
16:56:49 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:56:49 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started
16:56:50 [trackbot]: Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:56:50 [trackbot]: Date: 11 December 2013
16:56:57 [npdoty]: chair: justin
16:57:42 [npdoty]: npdoty has changed the topic to: agenda December 11: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0053.html
16:58:10 [npdoty]: agenda+ issue-5 and issue-10
16:58:16 [npdoty]: agenda+ issue-239
16:58:24 [npdoty]: agenda+ issue-153
16:58:30 [npdoty]: agenda+ issue-151
16:58:31 [Zakim]: +RichardWeaver
16:58:34 [Richard_comScore]: Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:58:47 [efelten]: efelten has joined #dnt
16:58:48 [Zakim]: +dsinger
16:58:56 [npdoty]: agenda+ issue-217 and issue-228 (network interaction, reminder)
16:58:58 [Zakim]: +??P18
16:59:03 [WaltMichel]: WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:59:18 [Zakim]: +efelten
16:59:41 [adrianba]: adrianba has joined #dnt
16:59:41 [wseltzer]: zakim, code?
16:59:42 [Zakim]: +WaltMichel
16:59:42 [Zakim]: the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), wseltzer
17:00:17 [Zakim]: +hefferjr
17:00:28 [Zakim]: +npdoty
17:00:31 [Zakim]: +ninja
17:00:37 [npdoty]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:00:38 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Jeff, RichardWeaver, dsinger, ??P18, efelten, WaltMichel, hefferjr, npdoty, ninja
17:00:38 [ninja]: zakim, mute me
17:00:40 [Zakim]: ninja should now be muted
17:00:46 [Zakim]: +??P41
17:00:53 [wseltzer]: zakim, ??p41 is I
17:00:53 [Zakim]: +wseltzer; got it
17:00:55 [kulick]: kulick has joined #dnt
17:01:00 [Zakim]: +Jack_Hobaugh
17:01:05 [Dsinger]: Zakim, who is making noise?
17:01:06 [wseltzer]: zakim, mute me
17:01:06 [Zakim]: wseltzer should now be muted
17:01:15 [Zakim]: Dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 11 (58%), Jeff (65%), ??P18 (14%), Jack_Hobaugh (68%)
17:01:25 [moneill2]: moneill2 has joined #dnt
17:01:31 [Zakim]: +Peder_Magee
17:01:40 [Zakim]: + +1.919.388.aaaa
17:01:52 [Ari]: Ari has joined #dnt
17:01:59 [Zakim]: +Ari
17:02:00 [AnnaLong]: AnnaLong has joined #dnt
17:02:23 [npdoty]: Zakim, ??p18 is schunter
17:02:26 [Zakim]: +schunter; got it
17:02:26 [Zakim]: +hober
17:02:26 [Zakim]: +kulick
17:02:39 [npdoty]: volunteers to scribe?
17:02:50 [susanisrael]: susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:02:50 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
17:02:51 [PMagee]: PMagee has joined #dnt
17:02:52 [Zakim]: +Susan_Israel
17:02:52 [Zakim]: +LeeTien
17:02:52 [Zakim]: +David_MacMillan
17:02:53 [justin]: justin has joined #dnt
17:02:55 [walter]: zakim, IPcaller is me
17:02:55 [Zakim]: +walter; got it
17:03:03 [npdoty]: Zakim, please choose a scribe
17:03:03 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Susan_Israel
17:03:10 [Zakim]: +moneill
17:03:22 [Zakim]: +[CDT]
17:03:30 [justin]: zakim, cdt has me
17:03:30 [Zakim]: +justin; got it
17:03:41 [npdoty]: Zakim, please choose a scribe
17:03:41 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jack_Hobaugh
17:03:56 [JackHobaugh]: I will give it a shot
17:04:04 [fielding]: fielding has joined #dnt
17:04:08 [npdoty]: scribenick: JackHobaugh
17:04:10 [Zakim]: +Amy_Colando
17:04:14 [justin]: zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:14 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Jeff, RichardWeaver, dsinger, schunter, efelten, WaltMichel, hefferjr, npdoty, ninja (muted), wseltzer (muted), Jack_Hobaugh, Peder_Magee, +1.919.388.aaaa, Ari,
17:04:17 [Zakim]: ... hober, kulick, walter, Susan_Israel, LeeTien, David_MacMillan, moneill, [CDT], Amy_Colando
17:04:17 [Zakim]: [CDT] has justin
17:04:19 [Zakim]: +[CDT.a]
17:04:33 [AnnaLong]: Zakim, aaaa is AnnaLong
17:04:33 [Zakim]: +AnnaLong; got it
17:04:38 [Zakim]: +Fielding
17:04:40 [Zakim]: +[Mozilla]
17:04:41 [GSHans]: zakim, [cdt.a] has me
17:04:42 [Zakim]: +GSHans; got it
17:04:47 [AnnaLong]: sure
17:05:02 [Dsinger]: Agenda?
17:05:03 [sidstamm]: sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:05:07 [sidstamm]: Zakim, Mozilla has me
17:05:07 [Zakim]: +sidstamm; got it
17:05:10 [npdoty]: Zakim, take up agendum 1
17:05:10 [Zakim]: agendum 1. "issue-5 and issue-10" taken up [from npdoty]
17:06:07 [Zakim]: +Bryan_Sullivan
17:06:14 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: the chairs have evaluated Issue 5 and 10 and decided. Will be publishing results. Chair are in three different continents. The definition of tracking: have decided on option A - that definition should be included
17:06:20 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
17:06:28 [Zakim]: +Chris_Pedigo
17:06:30 [adrianba]: zakim, [Microsoft] is me
17:06:30 [Zakim]: +adrianba; got it
17:06:47 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: on the party definition, we have decided on option A which is based on Roy's reformulation.
17:07:03 [Zakim]: +Brooks
17:07:05 [Brooks]: Brooks has joined #dnt
17:07:05 [ChrisPedigoOPA]: ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
17:07:28 [npdoty]: s/reformulation./reformulation of current text in the Compliance document./
17:07:40 [matt]: matt has joined #dnt
17:08:10 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: I can give a brief overview of why-adhoc. on tracking we found the objections to option B was broader. The TPE document is to be an expression of a desire not to be tracked.
17:08:24 [Zakim]: +Chapell
17:08:56 [johnsimpson]: johnsimpson has joined #dnt
17:09:00 [Zakim]: -Amy_Colando
17:09:01 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
17:09:14 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: the TPE is heavily dependent on parties. In order for the definition to have meaning it must be know who is being referred to. Cognizant that many members of the group do not want definitions brought over into the TPE. So this is meant to be very closely limited.
17:09:48 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: We thought the objection to D. Wainberg's definition were stronger because it was too open ended.
17:10:12 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: We will be providing a written decision document.
17:10:26 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: Don't want to debate the merits now.
17:10:31 [justin]: q?
17:10:32 [Zakim]: +johnsimpson
17:10:36 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: would be happy to take questions thought now.
17:10:49 [schunter]: schunter has joined #dnt
17:11:15 [bryan]: bryan has joined #dnt
17:11:30 [JackHobaugh]: Matthias: noticed shortcoming in the options when doing analysis. In the future people should make better proposals.
17:12:04 [JackHobaugh]: Matthias: feedback from the group was that the options were too broad.
17:12:16 [JackHobaugh]: Matthias: need to put more effort in to fine tuning the proposals.
17:12:37 [dsinger_]: dsinger_ has joined #dnt
17:12:44 [schunter]: q?
17:13:05 [dsinger_]: it is regrettable that the chosen option therefore conspciuously lacks a definition of Multiple" and "contexts"
17:13:10 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: agree with Matthias
17:13:27 [Zakim]: +[Apple]
17:13:30 [Zakim]: -dsinger
17:13:37 [dsinger_]: zakim, [apple] has dsinger
17:13:37 [Zakim]: +dsinger; got it
17:13:43 [Zakim]: +MattHayes
17:13:58 [JackHobaugh]: Justin: would be good to get to consensus by front loading discussion instead of going into C for objections process
17:14:07 [npdoty]: Zakim, next agendum
17:14:07 [Zakim]: agendum 2. "issue-239" taken up [from npdoty]
17:14:21 [ninja]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239
17:14:22 [johnsimpson]: apologies for joining late. which tracking option was selected?
17:14:28 [dsinger_]: I think Roy's recent edit has also removed a lot (most? all?) occurrences of first/third party from the TPE
17:15:12 [JackHobaugh]: Matthias: Issue-239: Roy has removed dependencies in the TPE to the compliance spec. The TPE has to be self-contained. Let's walk through edits and then go to the issue-239
17:15:22 [fielding]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0044.html
17:15:29 [kj]: kj has joined #dnt
17:15:48 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: refers participants to his email the summarizes the edits
17:16:36 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: issue-136 has been moved to the top.
17:16:56 [wseltzer]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0044.html Roy's email
17:16:58 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: section 5.2: I removed the 1 and 3 tracking status values
17:17:23 [ChrisPedigoOPA]: q+
17:17:26 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: replaced that with a "t" to indicate tracking with the notation that it would be explained elsewhere.
17:18:00 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: changed the symbol used for the dynamic tracking status value from "x" to "?"
17:18:23 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: in 5.4.3: I added "compliance array"
17:18:39 [walter]: :-)
17:19:00 [walter]: wseltzer: yes, they're too adorable
17:20:21 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: the compliance document will explain the qualifiers. removed third party member array. too hard to maintain array. in 6.11, I removed a sentence.
17:20:39 [justin]: q?
17:20:58 [hwest]: hwest has joined #dnt
17:21:04 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: possible that I could have missed something. look for when reviewing - examples that assume a particular view of compliance on part of the server.
17:21:16 [npdoty]: ack ChrisPedigoOPA
17:21:32 [JackHobaugh]: ChrisPeidgoOPA: Concerned about the removal of first and third party tracking status values.
17:22:08 [JackHobaugh]: ChrisPeidgoOPA: seems like the group has already agreed on that construct.
17:22:40 [JackHobaugh]: schunter: If we don't need the definitions then the best is to remove them.
17:23:13 [npdoty]: +1, I think indicating 1st/3rd was one of the more informative fields for users
17:23:23 [JackHobaugh]: schunter: signal called "1" means complied with the first-party rules so it is technically the right thing to remove.
17:23:34 [Chapell]: Chapell has joined #DNT
17:24:01 [Zakim]: -David_MacMillan
17:24:08 [JackHobaugh]: schunter: if we later have a compliance regime that distinguished between first and third parties then definitions would reappear. but don't want technical dependency on the definitions.
17:24:23 [dsinger]: we could easily change "claiming compliance to 1st party rules" to "believes they are, and is acting as, a first party", if we have the definitions in the TPE
17:24:25 [fielding]: We have issue markers in Terminology for the party definitions, awaiting the decision today. The 1/3 does not indicate whether the site is a first or third party
17:24:29 [JackHobaugh]: schunter: they would reappear as qualifiers.
17:24:36 [fielding]: q+
17:25:38 [JackHobaugh]: ChrisPeidgoOPA: believes the distinction regarding parties would be useful. agrees that another compliance standard could set the rules for the parties. believe it is important to note that an agreement already exists.
17:25:50 [Zakim]: +rvaneijk
17:25:57 [JackHobaugh]: ChrisPeidgoOPA: I strongly oppose and think there is value in keeping.
17:26:15 [dsinger]: q+
17:26:17 [susanisrael]: dsinger's suggestion seems worth exploring
17:26:36 [npdoty]: q+ to maintain agreement somewhere
17:26:51 [JackHobaugh]: justin: when we return to the compliance document the first and third parties will be addressed
17:27:00 [fielding]: dsinger, no site is capable of knowing that
17:27:15 [JackHobaugh]: justin: the 1 and 3 values in the TPE do not equate to first and third party.
17:27:26 [fielding]: it depends on how the link was used, not how the site was designed
17:27:27 [Zakim]: -johnsimpson
17:27:40 [dsinger]: fielding: the site knows what role it thinks it is claiming.
17:27:44 [justin]: q?
17:27:52 [dwainberg]: dwainberg has joined #dnt
17:27:54 [schunter]: q?
17:27:54 [npdoty]: fielding, dsinger, sites can know what they believe about how it's being used
17:28:23 [npdoty]: ack fielding
17:28:36 [walter]: q+
17:29:08 [moneill2]: it can be described because the whole idea of context is vague
17:29:18 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: the actual definitions of third and first parties will be the TPE definitions section. the only entity that knows the first or third party distinction is the user and that is not possible to describe in the TPE. It will specified in the compliance document. the 1 and 3 distinctions can still be added to the qualifiers sections -= can still respond as a first party or third pary.
17:29:26 [moneill2]: s/ca/cannot
17:30:14 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: so the information can still be communicated if needed.
17:30:49 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: this is not the time to objection that level of detail. If you object to anything I removed, please write to the group explaining why.
17:30:55 [npdoty]: ack dsinger
17:31:40 [JackHobaugh]: dsinger: feels strongly both ways.
17:31:48 [npdoty]: ack npdoty
17:31:48 [Zakim]: npdoty, you wanted to maintain agreement somewhere
17:32:10 [JackHobaugh]: npdoty: shares Chris' concern.
17:33:00 [ChrisPedigoOPA]: q+
17:33:06 [susanisrael]: +1 to npdoty
17:33:08 [JackHobaugh]: npdoty: but might be important to write down the qualifier route we are taking. Will to do that in a separate section of TPE or in TCS.
17:33:17 [justin]: zakim, close the queue
17:33:17 [Zakim]: ok, justin, the speaker queue is closed
17:33:31 [npdoty]: s/Will/Willing/
17:33:34 [npdoty]: ack walter
17:34:13 [Zakim]: -efelten
17:34:57 [Marc]: Marc has joined #dnt
17:35:03 [JackHobaugh]: walter: good idea to allow TPE to express what the server thinks the status it is operating in. Reason: compatible with notions of processor/control data.
17:35:50 [npdoty]: ack ChrisPedigoOPA
17:36:04 [JackHobaugh]: ChrisPeidgoOPA: agree with nick.
17:36:31 [JackHobaugh]: ChrisPeidgoOPA: long standing agreement for 2 plus years. Want it documented that the group agrees.
17:36:41 [npdoty]: +1 to Fielding that we take these details to the mailing list as well
17:37:01 [JackHobaugh]: ChrisPeidgoOPA: have already ported over definitions into the TPE that have compliance
17:37:18 [justin]: zakim, who is on the phone?
17:37:18 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Jeff, RichardWeaver, schunter, WaltMichel, hefferjr, npdoty, ninja (muted), wseltzer (muted), Jack_Hobaugh, Peder_Magee, AnnaLong, Ari, hober, kulick, walter,
17:37:21 [Zakim]: ... Susan_Israel, LeeTien, moneill, [CDT], [CDT.a], Fielding, [Mozilla], Bryan_Sullivan, adrianba, Chris_Pedigo, Brooks, Chapell, [Microsoft], [Apple], MattHayes, rvaneijk
17:37:21 [Zakim]: [Apple] has dsinger
17:37:21 [Zakim]: [CDT] has justin
17:37:21 [Zakim]: [Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:37:21 [Zakim]: [CDT.a] has GSHans
17:37:35 [npdoty]: issue-239?
17:37:35 [trackbot]: issue-239 -- Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? -- raised
17:37:35 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239
17:38:02 [justin]: zakim, issue-45?
17:38:02 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, justin.
17:38:11 [justin]: issue-45?
17:38:11 [trackbot]: issue-45 -- Companies making public commitments with a "regulatory hook" for US legal purposes -- pending review
17:38:11 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/45
17:38:32 [dsinger]: q+
17:38:39 [justin]: zakim, open the queue
17:38:39 [Zakim]: ok, justin, the speaker queue is open
17:38:40 [jeff]: zakim, open queue
17:38:41 [Zakim]: ok, jeff, the speaker queue is open
17:38:43 [dsinger]: q+
17:38:44 [justin]: q+ dsinger
17:38:46 [fielding]: The next substantive edit is to incorporate the definitions decision today -- note that the definition of tracking does not depend on a distinction between first and third party, which is new information with regard to the WG's prior work. It would be a shame to get stuck in a very unsuccessful past.
17:38:49 [JackHobaugh]: schunter: Issue-239: user needs to know what compliance regime is being used. Could have different versions - W3C compliance plus something else. Do we want to keep the old link or do we want to make explicit pointers?
17:39:06 [JackHobaugh]: schunter: I have to unfortunately run. Justin, take over.
17:39:56 [fielding]: yes, these are all just proposals regardless.
17:40:09 [fielding]: issue-239?
17:40:09 [trackbot]: issue-239 -- Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? -- raised
17:40:09 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239
17:40:23 [justin]: issue-183?
17:40:23 [trackbot]: issue-183 -- Additional Tk header status value for EU -- raised
17:40:23 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/183
17:40:34 [JackHobaugh]: justin: on Issue-239 linked issue 45 that has grown over time to include D Wainberg proposal. Also issue-183.
17:40:48 [JackHobaugh]: isn't issue-47 also related?
17:40:53 [Zakim]: -schunter
17:41:09 [justin]: q?
17:41:32 [npdoty]: JackHobaugh, Shane had asked about 47, but then suggested we use issue-45
17:41:35 [moneill2]: +q
17:41:35 [fielding]: Note that this provides only the technical ability to communicate one or more compliance regimes. It does not justify there being more than one, nor does it prevent the W3C compliance document from being the only one recognized by browsers.
17:41:47 [jeff]: ack ds
17:41:57 [JackHobaugh]: dsinger: choices: TPE could be silent. Could have W3C as baseline Or we could have an alternative documented in the TPE. We need to have a discussion about it.
17:42:44 [justin]: ack mo
17:42:52 [npdoty]: q+
17:43:03 [JackHobaugh]: But on October 30 Chris Mejia also asked that Issue-47 be reopened. The problem with Issue-45 is that it is against the TCS and not the TPE.
17:43:14 [Zakim]: -Susan_Israel
17:43:30 [JackHobaugh]: moneill: don't understand how a user would understand the implementation of Issue-239.
17:44:19 [JackHobaugh]: moneill: should be determinable by UA, plug-ins, etc. - pretty vague
17:44:31 [JackHobaugh]: moneill: need to bring in some definition to this.
17:44:37 [amyc]: amyc has joined #dnt
17:45:05 [fielding]: As mentioned on the list, the URIs are just hierarchically assigned names. The W3C does not define central registries -- this is how we do IANA stuff.
17:45:19 [justin]: issue-47
17:45:19 [trackbot]: issue-47 -- Should the response from the server indicate a policy that describes the DNT practices of the server? -- closed
17:45:19 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/47
17:45:53 [justin]: yes, jackhobaugh, I think that issue is implicated here too.
17:45:57 [justin]: q?
17:46:33 [ninja]: ack npdoty
17:46:58 [moneill2]: some of the group
17:47:01 [fielding]: This is not issue 47 -- there is no indication that the user needs to follow those links.
17:47:05 [JackHobaugh]: npdoty: some concerns around designers options. we would like to get to some consistent view. trying to be clear about what the user is expressing. don't want to put a field in unless it will be used by the UA. wouldn't expect user's to inspect the different compliance policies that they might be using. May cause unwanted blocking. if it doesn't help the user, then don't see the value.
17:47:35 [dsinger]: I agree with Nick that there are concerns here, and we need discussion
17:47:45 [JackHobaugh]: justin: is there defense against nick's concern?
17:48:00 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: that concern can be addressed by one array value.
17:48:35 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: there is no guarantee that there will be a universal regime for compliance but if there is than an array of one will handle it.
17:49:08 [npdoty]: but we aren't parameterizing the DNT header, we aren't giving users N options for different tracking they want to prevent
17:49:47 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: defining a protocol that is incapable of communicating that array is wrong on many levels - doesn't permit a server to communicate its status. Doesn't have to be evaluated by users.
17:50:24 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: for example if the EU wants a sticker definition, then one way to do that is to provide an additional link in the array.
17:50:35 [npdoty]: s/sticker/stricter/
17:50:55 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: all that is a reference to a standardized compliance document. Very easy to configure the client to have them verify a white listed set of tolerated policies.
17:51:45 [JackHobaugh]: justin: regarding one array value - if W3C leaves that open it would be on the UA to configure?
17:51:49 [dsinger]: I believe that an issue was opened; would it be better to get written pieces, questions, concerns, and so on, in email? It seems odd to be spending time on a new issue on the call
17:52:08 [moneill2]: fixed uri strigs?
17:52:13 [moneill2]: strings
17:52:24 [dsinger]: (Indeed, formally we said that any issues raised after a deadline that was some time ago would be addressed post last-call. This one seems to be getting special treatment.)
17:52:34 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: point is that this is syntax provided for the flexibility to set more than one value.
17:52:53 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: if we don't added it would probably be added outside the spec
17:53:06 [JackHobaugh]: fielding: that could come back to bite us at last call.
17:54:10 [JackHobaugh]: justin: regarding why this issue is now allowed: we realized that we have some dependency issues. And there have been related issues raised and that have been before the group for a long time.
17:54:49 [JackHobaugh]: justin: yes, in a perfect world we would be discussing this in the mail list instead of here.
17:54:53 [fielding]: I don't think we ever closed the issues on TPE -- that was a closure for TCS
17:55:05 [justin]: q?
17:55:08 [npdoty]: we can all agree now that we've chatted that we're going to use the mailing list for civil and constructive discussion on this issue.
17:55:17 [JackHobaugh]: would someone else like to take over scrubbing?
17:55:28 [JackHobaugh]: I meant scribing. :-)
17:55:36 [jeff]: Jack, I can scribe
17:55:37 [ninja]: JackHobaugh, I can take over
17:55:45 [npdoty]: scribenick: ninja
17:55:51 [Zakim]: -RichardWeaver
17:55:56 [JackHobaugh]: thanks! spell checker got me.
17:56:46 [ninja]: justin: Would like to have some constructive discussion before christmas. Encourage everyone to bring their opinion to the list. It's a crucial issue for the spec.
17:56:48 [npdoty]: Zakim, next agendum
17:56:48 [Zakim]: agendum 3. "issue-153" taken up [from npdoty]
17:56:52 [justin]: issue-153
17:56:52 [trackbot]: issue-153 -- What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? -- pending review
17:56:52 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
17:56:59 [ninja]: justin: Now ISSUE-153
17:57:05 [ninja]: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_limitations_for_add-ons
17:57:50 [ninja]: justin: explaining both options currently listed on the wiki.
17:58:00 [dsinger]: notes that the issue description correctly recognizes that plug-ins or browser settings are not intermediaries
17:58:05 [moneill2]: +q
17:58:27 [ninja]: ... Matthias urged that we batch close, but there were objections and then a discussion on the mailing list.
17:58:31 [justin]: ack mo
17:58:41 [dsinger]: I also wonder what new information has come to light since we settled this in June?
18:00:03 [bryan]: q+ to recommend we stay with the existing text, any more restrictive text would place non-UAs out of scope of DNT, and not reflect reality in the market's response re products that will support DNT
18:00:10 [ninja]: moneill: My thought was first that an intermediary must not change the dnt signal. But in there may be constraints with regard to children. There are legal reasons to override the decision by a child to allow tracking, which is not allowed e.g. by EU laws.
18:00:30 [kulick]: q+
18:00:42 [Zakim]: -Peder_Magee
18:01:25 [dsinger]: pending review means "did the editor integrate the decision correctly?"
18:01:30 [justin]: ack bryan
18:01:30 [Zakim]: bryan, you wanted to recommend we stay with the existing text, any more restrictive text would place non-UAs out of scope of DNT, and not reflect reality in the market's response
18:01:33 [Zakim]: ... re products that will support DNT
18:01:35 [dsinger]: (or it did back when I did the edits)
18:01:35 [npdoty]: q+
18:02:03 [eberkower]: eberkower has joined #dnt
18:02:23 [Zakim]: +dwainberg
18:02:57 [Zakim]: +eberkower
18:03:02 [ninja]: bryan: the proposal for the text chops off where there are requirements to change a signal. This would prevent innovative services to protect users privacy.
18:03:12 [npdoty]: ack kulick
18:03:14 [justin]: ack kulick
18:03:16 [ninja]: ... This is contradictory to users' needs
18:04:13 [vinay]: vinay has joined #dnt
18:04:19 [Zakim]: +AWK
18:04:54 [dsinger]: q+
18:05:22 [ninja]: kulick: one of the concerns I had: Giving the consumers an easy way to communicate their preference. We have not addressed yet how to handle exceptions etc. To build trust I was concerned of several different edge cases in the first versions
18:05:44 [bryan]: if the goal is "ease", then requiring the user to set DNT preferences in each and every browser/app/device that they have, will not serve that goal. An add-on that can sync preferences across all of the browsers/devices that a user uses is the best and easiest way.
18:06:18 [Zakim]: +Brooks.a
18:06:28 [johnsimpson]: johnsimpson has left #dnt
18:06:46 [ninja]: npdoty: The text as it is does not need additional prohibitions for edge cases. If we want to get it out quickly, prohibitions do not improve the spec
18:07:02 [dsinger]: The current text is pretty stiff already. Why do we need to prohibit software that helps configure the browser, or works as a plug-in?
18:07:02 [jeff]: ack npd
18:07:06 [dsinger]: An HTTP intermediary must not add, delete, or modify the DNT header field in requests forwarded through that intermediary unless that intermediary has been specifically installed or configured to do so by the user making the requests. For example, an Internet Service Provider must not inject DNT: 1 on behalf of all of their users who have not expressed a preference.
18:07:07 [jeff]: ack dsi
18:07:09 [ninja]: ... suggest to focus on requirements than on prohibitions.
18:07:25 [walter]: dsinger: +1
18:07:35 [eberkower]: Zakim, mute me please
18:07:35 [Zakim]: eberkower should now be muted
18:08:12 [walter]: +many
18:08:16 [kulick]: q+
18:08:29 [ninja]: dsinger: The text is already clear on the user being the one making the request and setting the preference. I don't see additional need to add the proposed text. We should not limit it to browsers as this would raise anti-trust concerns
18:08:37 [justin]: ack kulick
18:09:32 [dsinger]: The browser is *responsible* for the behavior of plug-ins.
18:09:38 [moneill2]: they are set by the user
18:09:39 [ninja]: kulick: one of the problems with plug ins that we have is that we cannot identify who is actually setting and sending the signal
18:09:43 [npdoty]: 153 was opened for non-plugins, because I think we had agreement on using text on plugins as of our discussions in December 2012.
18:09:52 [dsinger]: We discussed this at length
18:10:07 [ninja]: ... we want to make sure that there is transparency on who is sending the signal
18:10:47 [wseltzer]: q+ on "consensus"?
18:10:51 [justin]: issue-151
18:10:51 [trackbot]: issue-151 -- User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request -- open
18:10:51 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/151
18:10:58 [justin]: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_UA_requirement_to_handle_exceptions
18:11:05 [dsinger]: we *had* consensus on this, we were merely verifying the integration of text
18:11:08 [ninja]: justin: issue will go to CfO next week
18:11:14 [Zakim]: -walter
18:11:52 [ninja]: justin: Options are well captured in the wiki right now.
18:11:58 [dsinger]: I am puzzled that new options have appeared well after the deadline passed
18:12:16 [wseltzer]: me too
18:12:41 [npdoty]: dsinger, these options were submitted December 5th, at the chairs' request;
18:12:48 [npdoty]: ... I may have gotten them into the wiki later, apologies
18:13:11 [ninja]: ... .justin: *explaining the options on the wiki*
18:13:12 [justin]: q?
18:13:18 [Chapell]: I don't think Shane is on today's call
18:13:19 [wseltzer]: ack wseltzer
18:13:21 [Zakim]: wseltzer, you wanted to comment on "consensus"?
18:13:25 [dsinger]: Jack concerns intermediaries; Shane's concerns origins
18:13:26 [ninja]: ... possibility of eliminating a few of those?
18:14:12 [ninja]: wseltzer: on the last issue: I think there was just one objection to keeping the text as it is
18:14:16 [kulick]: Alan supported my call for 151 going to CFO
18:14:27 [kulick]: to the mailing list
18:14:28 [Chapell]: Wendy - I supported Brad's call for 151 going to CFO
18:14:39 [Chapell]: As did other folks
18:14:46 [kulick]: whoops
18:14:48 [kulick]: 153
18:14:49 [ninja]: ... maybe no need to go to CfO with this. consensus does not need to be unanimous
18:14:49 [kulick]: thx
18:15:13 [Zakim]: -WaltMichel
18:15:26 [npdoty]: Wendy is talking about 153, we have the multiple options on 151
18:15:45 [bryan]: q+ to ask why we mandate support for the exception interface, which can be disabled if javascript is off, as out-of-band methods are just as valid\
18:16:07 [justin]: q?
18:16:09 [justin]: ack bryan
18:16:09 [Zakim]: bryan, you wanted to ask why we mandate support for the exception interface, which can be disabled if javascript is off, as out-of-band methods are just as valid\
18:16:21 [ninja]: justin: Happy to take guidance. If a subset of the group wants to go to CfO with this, we will do so. Would like to hear rationales for this.
18:16:24 [moneill2]: yes
18:16:24 [wseltzer]: [in part, I wanted to make sure the minutes were clear]
18:16:30 [dsinger]: to bryan: quite; there is no functional difference between JS disabled, an API that the user has instructed always to say no, and no API
18:16:34 [moneill2]: yes
18:17:07 [moneill2]: +q
18:17:21 [ninja]: bryan: Are we forbidding out of band messages with this? Bcause of the mandatory java script req
18:17:27 [fielding]: OOB consent overrides anything in the protocol
18:18:10 [fielding]: … assuming it is correctly noted in TSV as "C"
18:18:14 [ninja]: ... javascript may not be the only feature if the UA does provide some way of out of band approaches
18:18:44 [JackHobaugh]: For a device to state it has implemented the TPE version x, doesn't it have to support the ENTIRE specification?
18:19:04 [Zakim]: -[Mozilla]
18:19:13 [sidstamm]: apologies all, I have to drop off
18:19:39 [npdoty]: q+
18:19:43 [dsinger]: yes, the TPE still has "C", as Roy notes: the origin server claims it has consent
18:19:49 [npdoty]: ack moneill
18:19:51 [ninja]: moneill: We have been talking about out of band overriding DNT. If we now say that UAs must support java script we open the possibilities to ignore valid signals that are implemented differentlx
18:20:17 [dsinger]: q+
18:20:25 [justin]: ack npd
18:21:13 [ninja]: npdoty: Software has to implement all pieces of the spec saying MUST or SHOULD, but not those from the server side
18:21:41 [justin]: q?
18:21:44 [justin]: ack ds
18:21:46 [Zakim]: -Brooks
18:21:49 [npdoty]: ... and non-JavaScript user agents aren't going to implement the JavaScript exceptions API, no matter how many MUSTs we add
18:21:55 [ninja]: ... and if it has no javascript is does not adhere to the java script requirements
18:22:14 [npdoty]: q+
18:22:45 [fielding]: The most annoying thing about this conversation is that there is no need for an API that is limited to javascript. We could have defined the same thing using Cookies.
18:22:55 [ninja]: dsinger: from the server's side of view it's indistinguishable whether the API is implemented and just rejected the request for exceptions or has not implemented javascript
18:23:09 [JackHobaugh]: I believe my proposal can be added to Shane's language if Shane agrees.
18:23:37 [ninja]: npdoty: Suggestion to merge Issue 153 and 151
18:23:37 [fielding]: … and a Cookie-based exception mechanism would have worked with intermediaries that add DNT:1
18:23:38 [kulick]: Sorry, I dont think I can represent on this point for Shane
18:24:01 [ninja]: justin: will talk to shane offline
18:24:02 [npdoty]: s/Suggestion to merge Issue 153 and 151/Suggestion to merge Jack's and Shane's proposal/
18:24:50 [justin]: q?
18:24:52 [ninja]: npdoty, sorry, understanding and scribing did not work in synch :)
18:25:01 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
18:25:10 [Zakim]: -dwainberg
18:25:11 [ninja]: justin: reminder for the open Call for objections. Please participate
18:25:12 [Zakim]: -hober
18:25:13 [Zakim]: -Bryan_Sullivan
18:25:13 [Zakim]: -hefferjr
18:25:13 [Zakim]: -[CDT]
18:25:14 [Zakim]: -AnnaLong
18:25:14 [Zakim]: -adrianba
18:25:15 [Zakim]: -eberkower
18:25:15 [Zakim]: -[Apple]
18:25:15 [Zakim]: -wseltzer
18:25:17 [Zakim]: -[CDT.a]
18:25:17 [Zakim]: -Chris_Pedigo
18:25:17 [Zakim]: -LeeTien
18:25:18 [Zakim]: -Chapell
18:25:19 [Zakim]: -rvaneijk
18:25:19 [Zakim]: -npdoty
18:25:19 [Zakim]: -kulick
18:25:20 [Zakim]: -Brooks.a
18:25:20 [Zakim]: -Jack_Hobaugh
18:25:22 [Zakim]: -AWK
18:25:22 [Zakim]: -ninja
18:25:25 [npdoty]: npdoty has joined #dnt
18:25:25 [Zakim]: -Fielding
18:25:27 [Zakim]: -Jeff
18:25:30 [Zakim]: -moneill
18:25:37 [Zakim]: -Ari
18:25:48 [npdoty]: fielding, we heard support from sites to a JavaScript API when we wrote it
18:25:57 [mecallahan]: mecallahan has joined #dnt
18:26:05 [npdoty]: ... thinking that interactivity would be useful, and that it didn't have to be guaranteed, just a common case
18:26:18 [npdoty]: Zakim, list attendees
18:26:18 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been Jeff, RichardWeaver, dsinger, efelten, WaltMichel, hefferjr, npdoty, ninja, wseltzer, Jack_Hobaugh, Peder_Magee, +1.919.388.aaaa, Ari,
18:26:21 [Zakim]: ... schunter, hober, kulick, Susan_Israel, LeeTien, David_MacMillan, walter, moneill, justin, Amy_Colando, [CDT], AnnaLong, Fielding, GSHans, sidstamm, Bryan_Sullivan,
18:26:21 [Zakim]: ... Chris_Pedigo, adrianba, Brooks, Chapell, [Microsoft], johnsimpson, MattHayes, rvaneijk, dwainberg, eberkower, AWK
18:26:26 [schunter]: schunter has joined #dnt
18:26:27 [npdoty]: rrsagent, please draft the minutes
18:26:27 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:26:36 [Zakim]: +MECallahan
18:26:36 [npdoty]: Zakim, bye
18:26:36 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #dnt
18:26:38 [Zakim]: leaving. As of this point the attendees were Jeff, RichardWeaver, dsinger, efelten, WaltMichel, hefferjr, npdoty, ninja, wseltzer, Jack_Hobaugh, Peder_Magee, +1.919.388.aaaa, Ari,
18:26:38 [Zakim]: ... schunter, hober, kulick, Susan_Israel, LeeTien, David_MacMillan, walter, moneill, justin, Amy_Colando, [CDT], AnnaLong, Fielding, GSHans, sidstamm, Bryan_Sullivan,
18:26:39 [npdoty]: rrsagent, bye
18:26:39 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items