16:55:06 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 16:55:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-dnt-irc 16:55:08 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:55:10 Zakim, this will be TRACK 16:55:10 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 16:55:11 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 16:55:11 Date: 12 February 2014 16:55:32 zakim, agenda? 16:55:32 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 16:55:33 1. Confirmation of scribe and caller-identification [from from ninja via ninja] 16:55:33 2. ISSUE-151: UA requirement to handle exceptions [from ninja] 16:55:33 3. ISSUE-153: Limitations for add-ons [from ninja] 16:55:33 4. ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) [from ninja] 16:55:34 5. ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context? [from ninja] 16:55:34 6. Announcement of plan for the next 3 weeks [from ninja] 16:55:36 7. AoB [from ninja] 16:56:05 Chairs: justin, schunter, CarlCargill 16:56:23 Regrets: moneill2, robvaneijk 16:56:45 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started 16:56:47 +hefferjr 16:57:13 JackHobaugh has joined #dnt 16:57:22 zakim, call ninja-mobile 16:57:22 ok, ninja; the call is being made 16:57:24 +Ninja 16:58:18 + +1.858.229.aaaa 16:58:25 +[Apple] 16:58:27 zakim, [apple] has dsinger 16:58:27 +dsinger; got it 16:58:42 +JackHobaugh 16:59:03 aaaa is WileyS 16:59:11 eberkower has joined #dnt 16:59:11 zakim, aaaa is WileyS 16:59:11 +WileyS; got it 16:59:12 fielding has joined #dnt 16:59:16 Ari has joined #dnt 16:59:46 +Fielding 17:00:31 kulick has joined #dnt 17:00:39 +eberkower 17:00:47 justin has joined #dnt 17:00:53 + +1.323.253.aabb 17:00:53 Zakim, mute me please 17:00:54 eberkower should now be muted 17:01:08 +kulick 17:01:32 zakim, aabb is Ari 17:01:32 +Ari; got it 17:01:33 +[CDT] 17:01:36 zakim, cdt has me 17:01:36 +justin; got it 17:02:00 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:02:00 On the phone I see hefferjr, Ninja, WileyS, [Apple], JackHobaugh, Fielding, eberkower (muted), Ari, kulick, [CDT] 17:02:00 [Apple] has dsinger 17:02:00 [CDT] has justin 17:02:16 sidstamm has joined #dnt 17:02:34 +[Mozilla] 17:02:37 +AWK 17:02:38 vinay has joined #dnt 17:02:40 Zakim, Mozilla has me 17:02:40 +sidstamm; got it 17:03:01 schunter has joined #dnt 17:03:11 zakim, take up agendum 1 17:03:12 agendum 1. "Confirmation of scribe and caller-identification" taken up [from from ninja via ninja] 17:03:44 +Wendy 17:03:56 mecallahan has joined #dnt 17:03:56 +??P3 17:04:22 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 17:04:25 +MECallahan 17:04:29 zakim, ??P3 is schunter 17:04:29 +schunter; got it 17:04:47 +Chris_Pedigo 17:04:56 +SusanIsrael 17:05:01 susanisrael has joined #dnt 17:05:10 zakim, please choose a scribe 17:05:10 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose eberkower (muted) 17:05:34 I wear a 17:05:39 brace on my wrist 17:05:43 sorry 17:05:49 i'll scribe 17:06:03 scribenick: kulick 17:06:07 scribenick: kulick 17:06:18 zakim, take up agendum 2 17:06:18 agendum 2. "ISSUE-151: UA requirement to handle exceptions" taken up [from ninja] 17:06:19 Chapell has joined #DNT 17:06:43 justin: provide update on CFO and then go to 241 and 240 17:06:53 ... and then talk about process moving forward 17:06:54 +Chapell 17:07:35 ... we will take a break at closing out TPE and provide time to clean up draft and call out any issues with it 17:07:36 link to results page: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-exception-151/results 17:07:44 ... update on CFOs 17:07:52 .... 151 17:08:09 ... one of the hardest... strongest opins both ways 17:08:19 .... option A seemed to have least strong obj 17:08:24 cOlsen has joined #dnt 17:09:07 .... option B we thought had strong arguments.... option c strong args as well mainly from dsinger on no tech need 17:09:14 +[FTC] 17:09:40 zakim, who is present? 17:09:40 I don't understand your question, ninja. 17:09:49 ... issue 153 17:09:57 zakim, take up agendum 3 17:09:58 agendum 3. "ISSUE-153: Limitations for add-ons" taken up [from ninja] 17:10:12 link to results page: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-addons-153/results 17:10:20 ... least strong to adding sentence from shane and david singer to make UAs share responsibility 17:11:05 issue-241? 17:11:05 issue-241 -- Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) -- open 17:11:05 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241 17:11:07 zakim, take up agendum 4 17:11:07 agendum 4. "ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3)" taken up [from ninja] 17:11:12 .... two issues that will be going to CFO 17:11:16 ... 241 17:11:26 wiki link: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_elements_for_1and3_party_use 17:11:43 ... 3 topins currently, but i thought it was narrowed down to two 17:12:11 .... usage as 1st and 3rd party to be provided OR no change from Roy 17:12:29 .... i dont think the proponents of opt 2 were willing to withdraw 17:12:42 yes, Nick's proposal is no longer valid 17:12:45 q? 17:12:52 .... we will announce the CFO on this one tonight 17:13:07 shane: 2 weeks ago i mentioned 143 17:13:12 issue-143? 17:13:12 issue-143 -- Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user -- closed 17:13:12 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143 17:13:15 ... i am expecting to turn that in today 17:13:22 ... how does that work with the existing timeline 17:13:42 justin: we discussed on call last week 17:13:53 .... however i know you werent there 17:14:09 .... it was decided to be closed against TPE and moved to compliance 17:14:28 ... thot could be explored in TPE 2.0 17:14:34 shane: is that a formal finding? 17:14:45 .... can you put that in writing so I can object 17:14:50 justin: i'll do that 17:15:04 .... if you have text or idea, please bring before the group 17:15:55 kj has joined #dnt 17:16:08 shane: ok... i'll do that... its unfortunate to deal after the fact 17:16:38 justin: sporry about that... i was going to remind, but forgot... there was some discussion on SNV calls and we looked at the minutes... 17:16:54 ... we read as a decision not to pursue in the TPE at that time. 17:17:07 ... i am personally interested and look forward to your idea 17:17:21 zakim, take up agendum 5 17:17:21 agendum 5. "ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context?" taken up [from ninja] 17:17:24 .... finally, discussion on context 17:17:29 ... isuee 240 17:17:34 wiki link: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context 17:17:43 ... reach out to try to merrge some proposals 17:17:48 q+ 17:17:56 .... 1, lang from Roy has been amended 17:18:04 ... lang from Rob .... 17:18:24 .... an chris PEdigo 17:18:27 ack ds 17:18:30 and then one from Chris mejia 17:18:39 -WileyS 17:18:58 I have been using it normatively since day 1 17:19:10 dsinger: when we defined tracking we decided that we wouldnt normatively used elsewhere but only to explain to the user what the protocol roughly does 17:19:20 .... but not a formal def in other parts of hte doc 17:19:40 q+ 17:19:44 justin: i dont recall no normative consequences 17:20:18 specifically, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#expression-format 17:20:25 Matthias said several times it could be (would be?) informal, just for the purposes of explaining to the user and introducing the TPE 17:20:31 .... ration for defining tracking is to provide what tracking means in normative terms (not sure I got this right) 17:20:40 ack schunter 17:21:10 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#TSV-1 17:21:11 matthias: 2 places int he cur spec... is where you mention DNT:1 and second is where site specifies no tracking 17:21:27 justin: that is our understanding of the co 17:21:32 OK, so we're somewhere in between 17:21:37 ... the term does have imp meaning 17:21:42 (hmm, looks like I have an old anchor name on that section) 17:21:51 q+ 17:22:05 dsinger: (didnt capture) 17:22:20 ack schunter 17:22:38 again, totally not interested in discussing issue-5 again 17:22:39 schunter: user can express and and how server responds is diff 17:22:40 we're in between in the sense that multiple compliance regimes will define differently what turning off tracking means, and hence what tracking is 17:23:04 justin: we are not re-opeing issue 5, just discussing understanding 17:23:05 thanks, I think I am about as clear as an in-between state can be... 17:23:23 q? 17:23:31 ... user mentions what they want and server responds and the compliance handles what that means 17:23:38 ... we have 4 options 17:23:45 .... going to CFO today 17:23:47 different compliance regimes might permit tracking in the presence of DNT:1, but it is still tracking in the eyes of the user. 17:23:52 .... 2 weeks to re4spond 17:23:53 +WileyS 17:24:16 ... primary goal: get TPE out 17:24:22 zakim, take up agendum 6 17:24:22 agendum 6. "Announcement of plan for the next 3 weeks" taken up [from ninja] 17:24:26 .... then turn back to compliance per Oct poll 17:24:43 .... chairs will decide how soon to take up compliance 17:25:03 ... decided for longer break due to IAPP and de-compress for folks... 17:25:34 ... after break will take up open issues for compliance doc 17:25:46 q? 17:25:54 ... not sure of issues ordering. if you have thots, pls share 17:25:58 ... questions? 17:26:09 pedigo: i am fuzzy 17:26:16 ... on the next steps for the tpe 17:26:40 ... will there be public comment, testing in real world? 17:26:50 justin: here is newbie chair understanding... 17:26:57 the REC process is an infinite loop 17:27:03 WileyS has joined #dnt 17:27:08 .... look over doc, identify errors 17:27:19 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call W3C Process, Last Call 17:27:22 .... then, group decides to put for public comment 17:27:29 ... this is high profile event 17:27:42 +LeeTien 17:27:42 .... then make decisions about any responses 17:27:43 +WileyS.a 17:27:43 -WileyS 17:27:54 ... then go to last call. 17:28:00 .... wendy, sound right? 17:28:05 Why not wait until we've actually obtained learnings from last call before moving forward with compliance? 17:28:09 wendy: putting to pub comment is the last stage 17:28:25 .... group agrees if ready for public review (i.e. last call) 17:28:34 .... then process comments from public 17:28:42 .... adress each of the public issues 17:28:48 .... then call for imp review 17:29:02 q+ 17:29:03 .... do we have some we can test... does it work as intended 17:29:06 +1 Alan - could we take a more meaningful break between TPE completion and C&S start? This will give us a bit more time get testing going on the TPE to inform C&S discussions. 17:29:13 ... then move to formal recommendations 17:29:19 .... then we go back to charter 17:29:32 .... charter expects us to produce TPE AND compliance 17:29:46 .... further stages we will push compliance doc to same level 17:30:15 pedigo: since hybrid process, which TPE will go to last call versus those that wont 17:30:24 Charter does not proscribe timing --- in other words, we don't need to start compliance prior to obtaining learnings from getting TPE to last call 17:30:28 wendy: this is why i posted some 17:30:33 ... of this 17:30:45 ... (scribe not getting all this) 17:31:13 ... there are stages after last call where it goes back to group and director before being finalized 17:31:24 ... and we expect to have both tpe and compliance 17:31:31 pedigo: i'm still fuzzy 17:31:50 .... i expect we will get a lot of comments on compliance 17:32:13 .... does public comments get addressed by group 17:32:16 wendy: yes 17:32:36 pedigo: calls for imp, do you feel TPE is enough or you need compliance ? 17:32:51 schunter: we need to show inter-operability 17:33:08 pedigo: so we need to wait? 17:33:10 q+ 17:33:21 schunter: yes, i feel that 17:33:28 ack ch 17:33:29 chapell: thanks justin 17:33:35 Ari has joined #dnt 17:33:39 I think its the other way around - speaking as someone who will actually implement 17:34:12 We don't want to rush Compliance. But steadily taking up the process again. 17:34:13 .... want to understand process to rushing towards compliance doc... concern of closing compliance issues without resolving comments to TPE 17:34:26 We should take some time (a few months?) to get testing up and running on TPE and allow those realities to inform the C&S discussion. 17:34:27 .... this is a practical concern of making decision with incomplete info 17:35:02 justin: the group will have some info that the group needs to consider 17:35:12 .... chairs should be open to new info 17:35:13 Justin - to be fair we've not implemented so we haven't had new info to inject back into the discussion 17:35:41 .... mission of w3c, should be standardize way to comply 17:36:04 chapell: is this w3c decision or working group decision to move forward 17:36:21 justin: Oct poll decision is what we are implementing now 17:36:33 chapell: charter doesnt req immediately do this 17:36:43 Chairs' plan on moving forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Oct/0350.html 17:36:51 justin: correct, but no reason we cant 17:37:02 For those of us who actually need to implement we won't have the add'l bandwidth you're speaking to - only those that don't actually have to implement anything will have the bandwidth 17:37:17 .... i hear args on both sides.... 17:37:17 There will be a compliance regime in time for TPE testing 17:37:33 ... we will move to TCS 17:37:44 chapell: my question is why so quickly? 17:37:57 dwainberg has joined #dnt 17:38:24 David, the TPE has moved fairly swiftly when we focused just on it - don't you agree? 17:38:29 ... two reasons to wait... 1- bandwidth, 2. learnings can develop with release of TPE 17:38:36 ... should i open an issue on this 17:38:42 ... ? 17:38:54 justin: good quest.... i dont know 17:39:04 .... i will talk with chairs after call on the process 17:39:21 That's because none of the chairs are working on real-world implementations 17:39:25 we're years behind where we thought we'd be; the group is showing clear signs of senility and tiredness. now we're working yes, there is light at the end of a long long tunnel. that's good. 17:39:28 .... chairs all felt strongly made sense to move forward per opt 3 in the oct poll 17:39:36 .... (missed> 17:39:53 chapell: i dont know i can say what the issues might be 17:40:08 .... history points to that there will be significant learnings 17:40:29 justin: can you articulate these? you can time as we wont pick up until march 17:40:42 Once we begin injecting the DNT signal into backend systems we'll have a better perspective to understand what is and what is not possible from a compliance perspective 17:41:02 Not on the Server side... 17:41:08 There is a complete process phase dedicated to addressing input from the implementation. 17:41:08 ... .... we are going to test and there are imp now 17:41:29 .... there may be competing compliance regime and we have made accomodations for those 17:41:39 chapell: to clarify 17:42:07 ... position of chair is resp of members of working group that there will be potential learning after TPE released 17:42:17 justin: let's not over formalize this 17:42:21 -SusanIsrael 17:42:26 q+ 17:42:41 ack sch 17:42:45 chapell: whooo, i have concerns that the chairs are represnting the group on cases always and it might not be 17:42:58 (paaraphrased, correct if I got wrong) 17:43:42 schunter: (paraphrase) easier to do operability with both pie3ces 17:44:00 -MECallahan 17:44:01 ... i say we go ahead with TPE and see how it flies 17:44:23 chapell: should we be providing info now of potential things we might learn? 17:44:27 Matthias, you're hearing from actual implementors that we need time. As you're not an actual implementor, don't you believe you should listen to those of us who actual implement this standard in the real-world? 17:44:41 ... is there a change to postpone work on compliance spec based on the info 17:44:43 It should be possible to test the TPE protocol without the TCS. Stubs can be used where necessary. 17:44:50 justin: speking for myself.... 17:45:13 .... it makes sense to discuss TCS and discussing those issues... but can be persuaded 17:45:14 q? 17:45:25 I am confused at what I am hearing. For years people have complained that the W3C is unable to make progress, and now they are asking for delay? 17:45:27 ack ws 17:45:29 .... willing to honor will of the group 17:45:55 wendy: procedural, chairs have wide decretion on ordering and when to move forward... 17:46:12 One of the biggest issues we had with the TCS was detailed use cases to prove what was and was not possible in real-world systems. By giving us some time to implement the TPE (against "another" compliance regime) we'll have better data to give back to the working group for the more debated areas such as Permitted Uses. 17:46:17 ... heard from chairs they will listen to validated concerns 17:46:23 Wendy, you keep referencing the charter, but the charter doesn't specify timing 17:46:58 ... we thot getting both out for imp review and experience was important 17:47:03 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter - see 2.2 Milestones 17:47:16 Chapell, the charter has "milestones" 17:47:17 justin: shane you have thots on IRC. is your issue mainly about numbers 17:47:19 shane: 17:47:30 shane: biggest issues first time on TCS 17:47:59 Wseltzer, the charter also references tracking protection lists (: 17:48:13 .... consumer adv wanted more real world data on why something not poss... and now we will be able to have real world data as evidence for why something will or wont work 17:48:25 Will we be doing tracking protection liss concurrently as well? 17:48:29 I don't see what has stopped that happening for at least a year; we have now changed the protocol in any important way in maybe a year now 17:48:57 ... all these types of roadblocks that were proffered earlier can be provided now with ability to have real world use 17:49:00 ["Progress of the Tracking Selection List specification along the recommendation track is independent of the progress of the two Tracking Preference specifications."] 17:49:09 .... we will have diff compliance specs.... 17:49:32 ... that info will be critical to TCS conv to help with best path forward... and this will take time 17:49:48 The official call for implementations comes with the formal status of Candidate Recommendation http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi 17:49:55 ... those implementing wont have as much bndwidth 17:50:01 dsinger, that's a good question.... why haven't we seen any preliminary data yet? 17:50:16 justin: your company has already been implementing against 17:50:28 .... if you can bring this data forward that would help 17:50:53 Microsoft has gone ahead and implemented their half, so you even had a browser to work with. 17:50:53 shane: we have some... but we are refactoring due to how changes have come about 17:51:13 .... but not completed... UGE, server side resp;onses 17:51:27 ... still lots of imp and learning ahead 17:51:33 .... don't want to be a slave... 17:51:40 ... to the schedule 17:52:00 justin: i am not certain what they looks like or changes 17:52:05 Let us discuss this more during the chairs call. 17:52:36 .... ... yopu are prosping to wait some time after TPE and then TCS 17:53:07 shane: lets assume alt compliance is same time 17:53:16 what compliance side? 17:53:25 ... want time to imp and learn and bring learning back to group 17:53:37 ... lost opp if we just move forward right away 17:53:47 DSinger - MSFT still turns on the signal by default so that excludes them immediately 17:53:50 justin: you presummably have lots of data already 17:54:02 +q to Wendy to say that this is backwards. we do a draft, and then implement against that (mutually) and use that as a learning vehicle 17:54:06 ... what arte you asking for 6 months, a year? 17:54:10 q- 17:54:12 shane: no, a few months 17:54:43 WileyS, your opinion of the validity of the signal being sent in no way inhibits your ability to test against it 17:54:46 ... should have more info(hopeful) end of q2 or q3 to bring info back 17:55:24 justin: hard to answer that going into this blindly 17:55:30 ... i see args on both sides 17:55:39 ... some say we already have delay 17:55:45 ... this conv is helpful 17:55:47 David - disagree, how do I test UGE if I don't recognize the MSFT signal in the first place? It would require I honor it to test UGE. Paradox! 17:55:59 ... can you put more of this in writing (i.e. the rational) 17:56:04 q+ 17:56:12 .... chairs will have to talk 17:56:22 shane: who is pushing forward other than matthais 17:56:29 justin: maybe david aslo 17:57:03 wendy: we might be assuming more about the process given the name "l;ast call" 17:57:23 ... group is trying to dev specs and learn friom imp process and change as needed fgrom learning 17:57:28 .... and move forward 17:57:35 Wseltzer, appreciate your point, but learning from the implementation process will take bandwidth from those who are going to implement 17:57:55 ... we seperate TPE and TCS and both are needed, so makes sense to have both with basic spec that could be tested 17:58:01 q+ 17:58:09 ack ws 17:58:11 -[FTC] 17:58:19 ninja, you can scribe from this point forward? 17:58:20 ... no one is trying to rush 17:58:27 yes 17:58:33 scribenick: ninja 17:58:36 (scribe was "lied to", told this was going to be a short call -- doh! ;) 17:58:39 Wendy - this misses the point that a W3C TCS may not be required and if it is, we'll have more information to inform that process with TPE implementations achieved 17:58:47 ack kulick 17:59:30 kulick: Back in the October poll, one of the arguments for separating was the chance to implement and gain more real-world information. 17:59:55 schunter has joined #dnt 17:59:56 [a diagram of the Rec-track process: http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/#/45 ] 18:00:00 +[Apple.a] 18:00:04 Zakim, Apple.a has me 18:00:04 +hober; got it 18:00:07 -Ari 18:00:11 Should we move on and discuss this during our chairs call? 18:00:16 justin: Have not revisited the arguments in the poll back then. I think we heard some in this discussion. 18:00:58 kulick: Made the division assuming we had sufficient time to test. 18:01:24 justin: I will take a look at the arguments and the rationale of the moving forward decision. 18:01:29 q? 18:01:34 q+ 18:01:53 +[FTC] 18:02:10 David, That's what we're trying to do with the TPE 18:02:35 q- 18:02:45 Intersting that the only people pushing back on the separation are non-implementors 18:02:46 dsinger: The Last Call is formally the status when we have agreed that we have a document we want to try to implement. Delaying the second spec would be taking this process backwards. 18:03:20 justin: We will do a 3 week break and giving people some time to think about/reviewing TPE. 18:03:43 ... also time to calm down and think about how/when to take up Compliance. 18:04:06 -AWK 18:04:16 -Chapell 18:04:23 ... Thank you everyone for your hard work on TPE. Happy to have it in this almost Last Call status 18:04:26 chairs call? 18:04:29 -LeeTien 18:04:29 thx 18:04:30 -[FTC] 18:04:32 -[Apple.a] 18:04:32 -Chris_Pedigo 18:04:34 -JackHobaugh 18:04:37 -[Apple] 18:04:40 -kulick 18:04:41 -hefferjr 18:04:42 -[CDT] 18:04:43 -Wendy 18:04:45 -[Mozilla] 18:04:46 -Ninja 18:04:55