W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2012

Agenda for 07 November 2012 call - V01

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:27 +0100
Message-ID: <5097C58B.5050303@schunter.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>

Chair:
-    Matthias
- Goal: Assign actions to open issues for TPE
---------------------------
Administrative
---------------------------

1. Selection of scribe

---------------------------
Old business
---------------------------

2. Review of overdue action items: 
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owne 
<http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner>

---------------------------
New business
---------------------------

3.Quick check that callers are identified

4.Discussion of new general approach to exceptions sketched in Amsterdam:
http://www.w3.org/mid/CAF4kx8fAXUE-iVBs75tX-t4dd0PX4VJGhXpB=DZA9FAD-u6e9g@mail.gmail.com
      Core changes:
          - Main responsibility of Exception UI is with the sites
          - Sites 'store' exceptions via API in browser
          - Browser may validate exceptions with their users to ensure 
they are OK with it
      Question:
          - Feedback?
          - OK to pursue this approach from now on?

--------------------------------
5. How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112

On these issues IMHO the status is as follows:
- If a site-wide exception is requested, all subdomains are 
automatically included
- This issue is only relevant for explicit/explicit lists of domains (if 
the site uses them)
- An original proposal (from Ian) used cookie-like handling
- The current approach requires explicit listing of all sub-domains
- Is this current approach OK or do we need to text alternatives?

-------------------
6. ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory?
     http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164

My understanding of the minutes is that we agreed in Amsterdam:
- keep a MAY (optional)
- Say that if a site that loads additional content "to be used in 1st 
party context" (flag: 1)
    from other domains, this content may not work properly unless this 
domain is desclared as "same-party"
- If this approach is still OK, I suggest to create an action to textify it.

------------------------------

7. ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between 
first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s)
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137

IMHO:
- The minutes at http://www.w3.org/2012/10/05-dnt-minutes
    contain some text on ISSUE-137
- No action is assigned
- TODO: Discuss and define way forward

-------------------------------
8.  Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs:
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2
       Goal:
        - Steps towards closing them?
         - Assign actions

9. Announce next meeting & adjourn

================ Infrastructure =================

Zakim teleconference bridge:
VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
IRC Chat: irc.w3.org <http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt

*****
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 13:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC