W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > June 2003

The Minutes of Conference Call on 11 June 2003 - Summary

From: <Patrick.Hung@csiro.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:02:40 +1000
Message-ID: <754324CDE8E4EE4498D8E0357D9136850160124A@saab-bt.act.cmis.CSIRO.AU>
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org

Minutes 11 June 2003 Spec Group Task Force Call - Summary

Participants:

Lorrie Cranor, AT&T
Joseph Reagle, W3C
Matthias Schunter, IBM
Jack Humphrey, CoreMetrics
David Stampley
Brooks Dobbs, Doubleclick
Giles Hogben, JRC
Rigo Wenning, W3C
Danny Weitzner, W3C
Rob Horn from Agfa
Patrick C. K. Hung, CSIRO


1. Task force reports

    - P3P beyond HTTP - Joseph Reagle
      -> Focusing on the P3P XML Web Services Context.
      -> Looking forward to hear Hugo's feedbacks about the issues of SOAP
feature.
      -> The draft of P3P Beyond HTTP Task Force Report is being progressed
on 
         schedule. The draft is online:
http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/p3p-beyond-http/Overview.html
      -> The report should be ready by the end of July. 
      -> The report is NOT intended for P3P 1.1 specification.
      -> Has to discuss with Danny about what can be extracted from the
report into P3P 1.1 specification.
      -> Needs cOmments from other people!
      -> Have to discuss with Danny.

    - User agent behavior - Lorrie Cranor
      -> The draft of UA guideline is ready online:
http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/ua-guidelines.html 
      -> Will have a group discussion on 12 June 2003.
      -> Need feedbacks/comments from the rest of working group!
      -> Concern whether the plain English translations are not a substitute
for the normative definitions. 
      -> Have to conduct an usability testing on the language.

    - Compact policies - Brian Zwit and Brooks Dobbs
      -> Nothing special to report.

    - Article 10 vocabulary issues - Giles Hogben
      -> Working on the proposal to P3P 1.1 WG and plan to be done by July
2003.
 
    - Agent and domain relationships - Jack Humphrey
      -> Nothing special to report
      -> Will get some work done in next couple of weeks

    - Consent choices - Matthias Schunter
      -> Working on the proposal to P3P 1.1 WG.
      -> Foxusing on the enterprise business policies P3P - content group
      -> Need more discussions.

    - Converting P3P data schema to XML schema - Giles Hogben
      -> Working on the proposal to P3P 1.1 WG 
      -> Need comments for the online documents:
http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/03-xml-data-schema.html
    
    - Signed P3P policies  - Giles Hogben
      -> Working on the proposal to P3P 1.1 WG 

2. Discuss user agent guidelines draft -- is working group happy with
   this draft? Should it be added as a part of the P3P1.1 spec? As an
   appendix?
   -> Translating the semantic of P3P to some other definition wordings.
      Must be consistent.
   -> The guideline is used as a recommendation.
   -> Enourage everyone to read it seriously and give comments:
      http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/ua-guidelines.html
   -> It will become part of the P3P 1.1 Specification.
   -> Lorrie will look where it should go in the specification.

3. Discuss bugzilla 215 - compact policy processing by user agents
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=215
   Proposal to add the following section:

   4.7 Compact Policy Processing by User Agents

   P3P user agents SHOULD NOT rely on P3P compact policies that do not
   comply with the P3P 1.1 specification or are obviously erroneous. Such
   compact policies SHOULD be deemed invalid and the corresponding
   cookies treated as if they had no compact policies.

   -> Propose that P3P agents should not reply on compact policy
   -> It does not comply with 1.1 or 1.0.
   -> What sort of changes and decisions can make on P3P compact policies.
   -> Implementation is not doing any checking on compact policy.
   -> Some Web site even only implemented P3P compact policies.
   -> There should not have inconsistent between Compact Policies and P3P
Policies.
   -> Use "SHOULD" instead of "MUST" in the specification of P3P compact
policies.
   -> Closing the issue and put it in the draft.
   -> Put it into 1.1 for more feedback and comments

4. Discuss Consent Choices working draft -- do we want to pursue this
   in P3P 1.1 or postpone to P3P 2.0?
   http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/05-cc-changes-to-P3P.html
   This is also related to Bugzilla 169
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=169

   -> Take P3P 1.1 recommendation.

5. Discuss bugzilla 170
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=170
   Consider expanding definition of CONSEQUENCE field to reflect how it
   is actually being used -- in particular to express summary of
   STATEMENT as well as value proposition. Alternatively, consider adding
   actual structure to CONSEQUENCE element to seperate out summary from
   value proposition.

   Based on discussion on last call I propose the following new 
   definition:

   A short summary (not to exceed 500 characters) of the data practices
   described in the statement that can be shown to a human user.

   [Note that we do not plan on changing the P3P data schema to reflect
   the 500 character limit, however, user agents would be advised to
   display no more than 500 characters.  We can also discuss whether 500
   characters is the right limit or whether it should be more or less.]

   -> COnsequence is used on the top of all purposes.
   -> A summary for the definition of cOnsequence 500 words in a natural
language
      is suggested. You can write as long as you want but it will be
truncated.
   -> Find out what the max. words should be. Are 500 words long enough?
Have to bound it.
      May have a lot of complains for 500 words.
   -> Need a human explanation of purpose. Not only restrict to the purpose
   -> Limit the scope. Recommendation on limit giving the agent to read full
context.
   -> You can write as long as you want but it will be truncated.
   -> Recommed to have NO limit on the definition of consequence
   -> Need further discussion.

6. Discuss bugzilla 168
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=168

   Consider adding human-readable explanation strings to all elements
   that don't have them
   - could be done for a specific set of elements or generically
   - it appears that the way the extension mechanism is defined in the
   P3P schema we cannot add such elements in arbitrary places -- for
   example, I think we can add them to high-level elements such as
   PURPOSE but not as sub-elements of individual PURPOSE elements

   It would be helpful if people could identify elements where they
   would like to see human-readable strings prior to our call.

   -> Keep it unless somebody brings any idea.
   -> If no idea proposed, just not do it.

7. Set date for next call (June 25?)

   Next conference call is Wednesday 25 June 2003 11am-12pm 
   US Eastern/16:00-17:00 UTC Dial-in number: Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200
   Code: 73794 ("P3PWG")
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 10:02:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:25 EST