W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > March 2004

[Minutes] 01 March 2004 P3P spec call

From: Humphrey, Jack <JHumphrey@coremetrics.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:53:56 -0600
Message-ID: <85063BBE668FD411944400D0B744267A052BD768@ausmail.core.coremetrics.com>
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org

Minutes of the 01 March 2004 P3P 1.1 spec wg call

Present:
Lorrie Cranor
Brooks Dobbs
Ari Schwartz
Jack Humphrey
Rigo Wenning
Dave Stampley


1. Agent and domain relationships
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=522

Jack just sent an updated draft, please review and send comments to mailing
list.


2. Primary purpose specification

Dave has a new draft to send -- will send ASAP. Uses a taxonomy consistent
with categories and  purpose/access elements. Please review and send
comments to mailing list.

Dave had a question about allowing multiple purpose specifications -- Rigo
suggested this was a  terminology confusion. Primary vs. Secondary is just
related to current vs. subsequent purpose. The  idea is to provide ability
to elaborate on what the current purpose is.


3. Clarify what we mean by data linked to a cookie
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=172

Lorrie will make Giles' suggested change ("retrieved from a record" instead
of "added to a record").
Otherwise people thought it looked good.
Lorrie will send out revised draft, asking for comments before next call so
this can be wrapped up.


4. Proposal to deprecate compact policies
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2004Feb/0026.html

Lorrie will be meeting with MSIE people on Friday, will discuss this issue
as well as agent/domain  relationships proposal.


5. P3P Generic attribute for XML applications
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2004Feb/0019.html

No one on call was familiar with issue. Lorrie gave overview:
- Don't want to invent new ways to apply P3P for every new XML application.
- Generic XML element could be used in any XML application.

Potential problem: XML chunks can be processed by different applications,
can be impossible for any one  policy to apply.
- Rigo's comment previously is that the policy author must cover all
potential applications
- Jack suggested that the policy could be viewed as constraints on how
applications can use the data
- Lorrie's solution: a mechanism to describe constraints using URI
attributes, each URI describing a  type of application, i.e. this policy
applies to this class of application. This potential solution  needs further
discussion and elaboration.


6. Set date/time for next call

Next call: Wednesday 10 March 2004, 11:00am EST
Received on Monday, 1 March 2004 11:53:57 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:30 EST