16:58:58 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 16:58:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-dnt-irc 16:59:00 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:59:00 Zakim has joined #dnt 16:59:02 Zakim, this will be TRACK 16:59:02 ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started 16:59:03 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 16:59:03 Date: 18 December 2013 16:59:07 +hober 16:59:10 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:59:10 On the phone I see Carl_Cargill, ??P50, hober 16:59:17 eberkower has joined #dnt 16:59:20 +Jack_Hobaugh 16:59:22 Zakim, ??P50 is schunter 16:59:23 +schunter; got it 16:59:48 +Peder_Magee 16:59:50 +eberkower 17:00:01 adrianba has joined #dnt 17:00:01 Zakim, mute me please 17:00:02 eberkower should now be muted 17:00:08 <_538> _538 has joined #dnt 17:00:13 robsherman has joined #dnt 17:00:13 susanisrael has joined #dnt 17:00:23 zakim, code? 17:00:23 the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ninja 17:00:26 carlcargill has joined #dnt 17:00:32 +SusanIsrael 17:00:38 +npdoty 17:00:39 vinay has joined #dnt 17:00:39 +Joanne 17:00:44 +[CDT] 17:00:46 +RobSherman 17:00:49 zakim, cdt has me 17:00:49 +justin; got it 17:00:50 +dwainberg 17:00:54 +[IPcaller] 17:00:59 +Andrew_Kirkpatrick 17:01:03 zakim, ipcaller is me 17:01:03 +walter; got it 17:01:12 dwainberg has joined #dnt 17:01:15 fielding has joined #dnt 17:01:35 +ninja 17:01:37 +Fielding 17:01:48 zakim, mute me 17:01:48 ninja should now be muted 17:01:50 + +1.813.907.aaaa 17:01:52 regrets+ johnsimpson 17:02:12 +Bryan_Sullivan 17:02:29 kj has joined #dnt 17:02:43 +[Apple] 17:02:50 zakim, [Apple] has dsinger 17:02:50 +dsinger; got it 17:02:52 Zakim, aaaa is hefferjr 17:02:52 +hefferjr; got it 17:03:04 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:03:05 On the phone I see Carl_Cargill, schunter, hober, Jack_Hobaugh, Peder_Magee, eberkower (muted), SusanIsrael, npdoty, Joanne, [CDT], RobSherman, dwainberg, walter, 17:03:05 ... Andrew_Kirkpatrick, ninja (muted), Fielding, hefferjr, Bryan_Sullivan, [Apple] 17:03:05 [CDT] has justin 17:03:05 [Apple] has dsinger 17:03:08 -Bryan_Sullivan 17:03:25 +ChrisPedigoOPA 17:03:26 volunteers to scribe? 17:03:30 moneill2 has joined #dnt 17:03:31 cOlsen has joined #dnt 17:03:36 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 17:03:53 +Bryan_Sullivan 17:03:54 +moneill 17:03:59 susanisrael can scribe to start, who wants to take the second half? 17:04:08 i take over 17:04:13 scribenick: susanisrael 17:04:13 +[FTC] 17:04:15 laurengelman has joined #dnt 17:04:17 thanks, ninja 17:04:27 +??P79 17:04:31 yes :) 17:05:03 Zakim, ??P79 is laurengelman 17:05:03 +laurengelman; got it 17:05:30 npdoty has changed the topic to: agenda December 18: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0090.html 17:05:38 agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0090.html 17:06:03 +Chapell 17:06:04 bryan has joined #dnt 17:06:19 link to CfO https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-collect-204/results 17:06:27 Chapell has joined #DNT 17:06:31 +kulick 17:06:37 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 17:06:42 justin:had cfo on collecting retaining use share and they were not strong objections, but there were stronger objections to A, so we went with B (when such narrow differences in future chairs would appreciate avoiding cfo) 17:06:47 +[Microsoft] 17:06:53 zakim, [Microsoft] is me 17:06:53 +adrianba; got it 17:07:02 ....when people object to how term is used please object to that not definition 17:07:24 +rvaneijk 17:07:26 FPFJoeN has joined #dnt 17:07:49 i don't disagree, justin 17:07:55 I proposed the same. 17:07:56 ...note inadvertent error, that share requires you first collect. Not intended. Roy proposed friendly amendment, delete "has collected." 17:08:05 Brooks has joined #dnt 17:08:16 +Brooks 17:08:19 q+ 17:08:24 ...vinay says he does not disagree--was unintentional. to be transparent will send revised definition to group and hope there are no concerns..... 17:08:36 ....will send around in christmas/festivus spirit.... 17:08:38 ack dsinger 17:09:06 +Wendy 17:09:08 q- 17:09:19 dsinger: not a minor problem. def says you share only if you collected. you could pass data around during transaction and that would not be sharing. 17:10:02 justin: did not mean to understate importance, just meant it was unintentional. Will send explanation around on collection. 17:10:28 WileyS has joined #dnt 17:10:30 vincent has joined #dnt 17:10:32 reminder on deadline for network interaction Call for Objections: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-interact-217/ 17:10:38 ....one other reminder, cfo on network transaction closes tonight. Now move on to discussion of issues # ___ and 151 17:10:45 +WileyS 17:10:47 zakim, who is making noise? 17:10:52 zakim, who is making noise? 17:10:58 dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: SusanIsrael (18%), schunter (97%) 17:11:06 Topic: issues 151 and 153 17:11:09 wseltzer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: kulick (43%), schunter (59%) 17:11:20 Matthias: basically discussion on that one was that user agents/add ons, etc can modify preferences if they follow requirements. 17:11:23 +vincent 17:11:42 on a high level, brad proposed only user agents can do so.... 17:11:58 ....these 2 alternatives, and don't see easy way to reconcile them.... 17:12:11 +q 17:12:15 dsinger: why do we need to prohibit plug-ins and add-ons? 17:12:30 ack WileyS 17:12:39 the setter can change the UA string also 17:12:39 issue-143 17:12:39 issue-143 -- Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user -- closed 17:12:39 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143 17:12:51 q+ 17:12:54 wileys: primary issue is validation. today user agent string that says who user is and who set. Helps increase confidence in industry to implement standard 17:13:20 ....as we allow other elements to inject signal we can't validate if they did the right thing... 17:13:20 q+ 17:13:27 if they change one header thay can another 17:13:52 goal is to increase confidence in industry to get strong adoption, and then ease scope from there, along with validation structure. 17:14:17 +FPFJoeN 17:14:27 202.587 is me 17:14:34 ...discussed this around issue 143, and felt that would be too heavy (validation string) at outset, so narrowed scope to validatable source... 17:14:35 zakim, mute me 17:14:35 FPFJoeN should now be muted 17:14:37 q? 17:14:46 sidstamm has joined #dnt 17:14:47 dsinger: sort of makes sense, discuss later, raises issues 17:14:59 wileys: goal is adoption 17:15:00 I don't think forbidding plugins will help with validating signals only coming from browsers 17:15:02 hi all, apologies I am unable to dial in today, but will watch IRC 17:15:05 UA headers cannot be validated today, how cabn they be used to validate the source of a DNT signal? 17:15:10 the asumption is that servers can discrimate compliance on inspecting the UA string 17:15:21 wileys: trying to get bulk of users/uses in v1 then expand 17:15:44 dsinger: could say if browser permits plug-ins and extensions it is responsible for result 17:15:50 wileys: fair 17:16:08 +q 17:16:38 Doesn't anyone else support kulick's proposal to prohibit add-ons and software from sending DNT:1 headers? On the recent calls, I don't think we've heard support for this proposal beyond kulick and WileyS. Anyone else? 17:16:45 reduction of user choice is not the goal of the TPWG - removing user-requested functions outside the browser is a reduction in choice for users 17:16:46 wileys: it's ok if user agent makes sure plug in has done right things and takes responsibility? 17:16:49 I've provided updated text from Brad on the wiki: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_limitations_for_add-ons 17:16:58 Justin: i support kullick's proposal 17:17:11 wileys: text is purposely narrow 17:17:31 s/justin/susanisrael 17:17:57 q? 17:17:58 dsinger: agree that we're trying to find trustworthy signal, let's see if we can iterate on text 17:18:03 (I think susanisrael is saying she supports kulick's proposal, not me.) 17:18:12 This was scheduled to go to Call for Objection today. 17:18:14 * justin sorry, and yes, i support kulick's proposal 17:18:40 wileys: dsinger, you drive, we are fine with text and will review any changes you propose 17:18:48 it sounds like there was a potential iteration on plug-ins if user agents accept responsibility 17:18:57 q? 17:19:01 ack wal 17:19:03 David Singer will propose a new update, with review from Brad/Shane 17:19:12 thank you for the exchange 17:19:35 hwest has joined #dnt 17:19:39 walter: short of hearing there is no way to validate i have heard nothing that makes any sense on this subject, and there is no way to validate signal 17:19:57 ...i can't see how this language would enhance conficdence of industry 17:20:16 walter: we should stop wasting time on issues that are outside control of user agent 17:20:29 q? 17:20:34 ack br 17:20:46 I couldn't hear very well - the last speaker was very mumbled 17:20:51 GSHans has joined #dnt 17:21:00 WileyS: sorry, Skype... 17:21:01 q+ 17:21:24 WileyS: long story short, stop bickering about validating the signal because you fundamentally cannot do so based on UA headers. 17:21:30 bryan: i dropped a couple notes on irc. user header is not validatable today. Any restriction on user choice is not in interest of tpwg or consistent with goal of tpwg. There are 2 options i submitted 12 december 17:21:38 Strongly disagree with Bryan - as to the purpose for our being here and to what the fair and balanced approach to validation may appropriately be 17:21:40 you probably cannot validate the signal anyway 17:21:55 sorry, Bryan, I must have missed the specific text alternatives; if you can help me find them on the mailing list, that would be great 17:21:55 +WaltMichel 17:21:59 ...either spec remains as is or remains silent on anything outside browser. These are 2 choices that are valid in my opinion 17:22:09 q? 17:22:15 matthias: so now we have 2 texts that don't satisfy your requirement? 17:22:17 bryan, it sounds like the current text does satisfy your concern though? 17:22:40 WaltMichel has joined #DNT 17:22:42 q+ 17:22:42 q? 17:22:47 ack mo 17:22:52 bryan: i can submit language that says text reads on nothing but browsers, this set. This whole argument is based on house of fallacy cards 17:23:22 q? 17:23:28 ack d 17:23:31 moneill: if you can change one header can change another header. not true that user could look at user agent string as basis for deciding what to do 17:23:54 David - we will strongly object to that position 17:24:09 what about leaving normative language on ignoring signals to the compliance spec? 17:24:10 Well, we do have the disregard signal . . . 17:24:11 dsinger: heard a lot about balance here. should say that party MUST NOT ignore dnt signal based on suspicion about whether user set signal 17:24:14 Agree with Shane. David -- that's also a compliance issue and shouldn't be addressed in the TPE 17:24:20 That means everyone would have to recognize IE10 even though we KNOW they are turning it on by default 17:24:25 ...takes protocol away from interests of users 17:24:28 dsinger, this may be related to issue 197 - the disregard signal 17:24:32 reference to the proposal (I will add specific text for #2) is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0074.html 17:24:36 dsinger: if hard to set then should make it hard to ignore 17:24:42 s/that says text/that says @@@. This text/ 17:24:45 q+ 17:24:52 zakim, close the queue 17:24:52 ok, justin, the speaker queue is closed 17:24:52 q+ 17:24:56 +LeeTien 17:24:57 q+ dwainberg 17:25:04 zakim, open the queue 17:25:04 ok, justin, the speaker queue is open 17:25:06 It isn't. It is an install-time option, as I understand 17:25:09 q+ dwainberg 17:25:13 zakim, close the queue 17:25:13 ok, justin, the speaker queue is closed 17:25:14 IE doesn't have a default - we prompt users during install or during first run on Win7 17:25:28 note also that IE sends different UA strings to different sites for compat reasons 17:25:35 vinay, does compliance for UAs need to be in the TPE, but compliance for servers be in Compliance? 17:25:36 wileys: i disagree. so IE10 forcibly activates signal as default. so then saying i still have to honor it? that's false. No one will adopt if forced to honor signal set by fault 17:25:53 dsinger: not true at all. YOu are ignoring validly set signals 17:25:55 WileyS, Shane you have to check for IE11 now and you cant do that (in fact) by checking the UA string 17:26:00 dsinger: not non compliant 17:26:13 q? 17:26:18 wileys: it is noncompliant. we have to respond. 17:26:32 dsinger: i care about honest transaction 17:26:53 Let's move this discussion to ISSUE-197 later on the call. 17:26:56 wileys: if you say i believe this transaction not compliant, and here are alternatives, that is honest 17:27:05 +q 17:27:13 (We're rehashing old ground here.) 17:27:16 nonsense 17:27:19 q+ 17:27:23 matthias: david why do you think shane is wrong 17:27:31 q? 17:27:34 dsinger: shane you are completely wrong on this 17:27:35 Let's stick to 153 please. 17:27:57 * +1 to deep breaths 17:28:20 ack hobe 17:28:28 matthias: exhcnage arguments 17:28:39 on call for objections 17:29:09 q+ 17:29:20 adrianba, defaulting to a set option during install is not the same as a user preference affirmatively selected at first use. Presenting IE's implementation as conforming to the protocol is completely absurd. 17:29:29 ...[who is speaking?] problematic. historically w3c has not listed broswers of day 17:29:29 (Yeah, we can't do that.) 17:29:34 +1, we should not (and I believe, do not) rely on lists of user agents 17:30:05 q? 17:30:07 ack walt 17:30:07 ack walter 17:30:07 bryan: i was not suggesting you list browsers. was saying if you limited browsers to those following rules only then would be logical 17:30:42 walter: think we are arguing about a compliance issue not a tpe issue. This should be left to the compliance spec 17:30:59 fielding, protocols don't define UI 17:31:12 nor, for that matter, is the pre-selected option a choice for privacy, since that option also pre-selects allowing Microsoft to collect data on that same user 17:31:12 ...so issue 153--even though I agree with dsinger that IE10 should be deemed valid--don't think we should get in to this now 17:31:25 IE11 presents a checkbox during first run on Win7 if you haven't previously modified the setting in IE10 17:31:26 to fielding: an install-time choice, and asking the user, or even suggesting a setting, do not constitute a 'default' 17:31:39 +David_MacMillan 17:31:50 I quite agree this is a compliance question 17:31:51 matthias: so if you want to get this in to cfo please propose text 17:32:21 q? 17:32:22 The TPE merely has to say what the signal is and how it is formed 17:32:24 ack dw 17:32:25 matthias: so you have user sending signals, and other side responding, i think it is a valid point that this could go in compliance text 17:32:27 NEW TEXT BY TOMORROW 17:32:50 dwainberg: i want to address this false issue of balance, as if there is any balance between sides of signal 17:33:12 +Thomas_Bause_Mason 17:33:15 ....the costs, incentives, and consequences are very different on the 2 sides of the transactions 17:33:17 adrianba, application level protocols communicate semantics, and when you deliberately lie about those semantics you are not conforming to the protocol. That is HTTP/1.1. 17:33:32 Justin, are you driving for text by tomorrow because we're moving to the CfO next week or will this be pushed out a few weeks due to x-mas and new years? 17:33:46 matt has joined #dnt 17:33:46 the contraint is already that it has to reflect the choice of the user 17:34:02 dsinger, an install-time choice made by someone other than the user is not, by definition, the user's choice. 17:34:03 ...this notion of balance and tit for tat on what's said on client side and server side is ridiculous and we should dispense with it and focus on the outcome we want in marketplace 17:34:09 -kulick 17:34:32 WileyS, well technically you were supposed to have next text in by last week! I would like to move to Call for Objection tomorrow night, and the response timing would take account of Christmas and New Years. 17:34:33 +kulick 17:34:34 +Amy_Colando 17:34:39 zakim, open the queue 17:34:39 ok, justin, the speaker queue is open 17:34:45 matthias: no agreement, so by tomorrow night ....walter suggested move to compliance...i want all this text by tomorrow night. 17:34:54 fielding: it's a choice presented TO THE USER. "Do you want fries with that?" is not McDonalds forcing fries on the population 17:34:54 matthias: next issue is 151. 17:35:00 issue-151? 17:35:00 issue-151 -- User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request -- open 17:35:00 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/151 17:35:02 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_UA_requirement_to_handle_exceptions 17:35:14 dsinger, you have obviously never installed IE10 or IE11 17:35:30 dsinger: more like, we've added fries with that, please let us know if you like to have those removed. 17:35:35 Justin: i can do that. John simpson is one of the people who wanted this to be optional and he is not on call so we may not get to agreement.... 17:36:07 Sure - more than happy to merge 17:36:13 +MattHayes 17:36:18 ....there are 2 proposals in wiki that are quite similar (Jack's and Shane's) so could we merge these? "If you send dnt 1 must be able to process uges. " 17:36:41 JackHobaugh, are you comfortable with Shane's text? I can more easily understand that text 17:36:43 ....so there is indication of willingness to merge... jack are you ok with other text? 17:36:48 Of course mine is better! LOL - just kidding. I need to read them again to see how best to merge but I think they are both saying the same thing. 17:36:55 can someone remind what technical reason (this is the TPE) there is to link exceptions and the DNT header? 17:37:11 jackhobaugh: i think shane was trying to broaden my language 17:37:28 again, this is a compliance issue, not a TPE issue 17:37:39 wileys: i have to read them, don't remember, but jack if yours just broadens ours, more than happy 17:37:50 justin: will ping you off line to pick one 17:38:03 q? 17:38:06 q+ 17:38:11 Neither option are adequate for me on this, I will add another option to the wiki 17:38:15 justin: now is a good time for questions 17:38:32 David, its about a fully forced transaction 17:38:49 dsinger: what tech reason to link exceptions and dnt? understand that industry looking for paper thin excuses to ignore 17:38:51 This may also be a compliance issue... 17:38:58 s/fully forced/fully formed/ 17:39:10 wileys: really looking for fully formed transactions, so this is conversation not command 17:39:37 ...this is why we supported response....want full conversations. If you can say no you should be able to say yes 17:39:43 this sounds like compliance to me. there is not technical link here 17:39:49 s/not/no/ 17:39:57 ...trying to bring balance to gain adoption 17:40:00 q+ 17:40:05 ack ds 17:40:27 q- 17:40:34 q+ to note that user agents that do not support or have javascript activated need an option to support DNT and a javascript-only UGE process would exclude them. 17:40:43 dsinger: you did say in cambridge you did not want to honor....(? not sure if this is what david said) 17:40:55 wileys: not true. But will register exception where granted. 17:41:12 wileys: we did not refuse to store exceptions in user agent 17:41:23 q? 17:41:36 in Cambridge we heard (a) we don't expect to use the exceptions API and (b) we intend to use the absence of it as (another) reason to ignore DNT headers. I am now hearing that (a) is no longer true. 17:41:38 ...instant on signal says no to everything. UGE is attempt to restore some equity 17:41:41 susanisrael, I can take over starting from the next issue on the agenda 17:42:08 again, that is not a technical reason 17:42:35 wileys: I agree it is compliance-esc, but saying if you are implementing method A, must do method B 17:42:40 dsinger: not technical 17:42:41 I think it's the compliance of the user agent, right? 17:43:06 ok 17:43:06 npdoty: compliance to the technical spec or to the compliance spec? 17:43:07 matthias: david makes a valid point, that this may not be part of TPE. 17:43:22 ack npdoty 17:43:27 another option that should be considered, if we can't reach consensus on this issue, is to move the UGE to a separate spec on a different timeline (where e.g. we could consider other approaches including declarative), and support only out-of-band exceptions in the first release 17:43:30 kulick has joined #dnt 17:43:33 ... and one option may be moving it to compliance 17:43:43 q? 17:43:43 justin: question for shane: came up in cambridge : why out of band consent to be retained? 17:43:54 wileys: for parity 17:44:37 Understood - non-JS supportive environments would not be able to support this 17:44:47 npdoty: i share concern about implementation, widespread adoption. My question is a clarification. Browsers with java off are minority, around 2 percent. for text by shane and jack do we interpret that as ... 17:45:01 ...if user turns of java script do we say you have turned off dnt? 17:45:05 s/java off/javascript off/ 17:45:30 would certainly trust Shane's numbers as more up-to-date than mine 17:45:40 absolutely, it's not the common case, because JavaScript has been useful 17:46:05 WileyS: I disagree that DNT is comparable to willingly sacrifice some usability 17:46:11 wileys: if user de-activates javascript i think we could live with that; they are not getting other features. OK with that; we don't have to say DNT is off because they can't store UGE, or we could move to UGE in cookies 17:46:23 justin: i am confused. How would you know what's going on. 17:46:34 justin: why? 17:46:53 dsinger_ has joined #dnt 17:46:58 -LeeTien 17:47:04 wileys: it's validatable. I don't expect major browsers to try to game the system in that way, just turning off js for UGE. 17:47:06 npdoty has joined #dnt 17:47:09 javscript can be turned off only for a few domains (e.g. using noscript) 17:47:12 justin: do you need to revise proposals? 17:47:22 wileys: can use non-normative text 17:47:48 q? 17:47:52 justin: would it be that if you are technically able to support UGE you must, but if you can't you can't is that right? 17:48:16 wileys: that's fair--consistent with Mike's and Walter's conversation on the list re: screen readers, etc. 17:48:21 I interpret that along the silence/editors' draft view; the API is required, but non-JS agents can't implement it 17:48:33 q+ to discuss timing 17:48:43 wileys: ok with UGE not supported where JS generally not supported.... 17:48:51 justin: so "should"? 17:49:09 wileys: no keep it a must but provide escape clause in non-normative 17:49:17 sounds like a should 17:49:30 justin: let's work on this offline 17:50:19 bryan: i dropped a couple notes on irc. I think the case where you don't support this particular approach to UGE is a very important case. those people have to be protected. we don't want to eliminate... 17:50:49 out-of-band exceptions (likely stored in cookies) are already present as an option that doesn't require javascript 17:50:49 ...2 percent of peoplle --a significant number. If we don't have way to support UGE without JS, should make it its own spec. 17:51:06 ....reliance on a specific UA technology is really limiting 17:51:09 spinning off UGE creates serious unbalance in the short term 17:51:14 ack dsinger 17:51:14 dsinger_, you wanted to discuss timing 17:51:19 Candidate Recommendation (CR) 17:51:19 A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C believes has been widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements. W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to gather implementation experience. 17:51:23 ack bryan 17:51:23 bryan, you wanted to note that user agents that do not support or have javascript activated need an option to support DNT and a javascript-only UGE process would exclude them. 17:51:24 q- bryan 17:51:28 David - that is not the answer you received - at least not from us 17:51:44 actually, we are only talking about LC 17:51:47 not CR 17:51:57 David - its not valid if it doesn't support UGE 17:52:01 David - I don't recall the discussion you are citing. In fact, I remember you being very upset as the discussion took a different turn while in Cambridge 17:52:01 and no that whole argument is nonsense 17:52:05 dsinger: we have timing issue. I asked in cambridge if industry would behave like gentlemen and honor spec during implementation period/candidate rec. Answer was "NO." Apparently industry will not honor valid signals. 17:52:05 Not worth addressing 17:52:07 we'd be moving to Last Call (which is a wider comment period) before the Call for Implementations 17:52:34 -Joanne 17:52:59 Brooks_ has joined #dnt 17:53:00 justin: i will work with shane and jack to refine their proposal. Bryan if you want to suggest some other specific thing will try to get that done in next few days, but it's important and if it slips it slips...... 17:53:24 justin: would like to have these discussions sooner in the timeline for cfo, though they are good discussions. 17:53:25 Can we discuss holiday timing? Its my understanding we're hitting the pause button for the next 2 weeks - correct? 17:53:26 after a Last Call ends, the document enters CR, guys 17:53:29 scribenick ninja 17:53:35 scribenick: ninja 17:53:43 Thank you Justin! 17:53:53 we're not having calls for the next two Wednesdays, but I'm still expecting us to do work in the meantime on mailing lists 17:54:11 Justin: Holiday timing, christmas is next wednesday, then new years, so next call on Jan. 8 17:54:19 Nick, I'm sure everyone will be on the mailing list on Christmas ;-) 17:54:23 Topic: Contexts 17:54:25 ... Next issue-240 Defining context 17:54:49