- From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:13:00 -0400
- To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Minutes of the 16 July 2003 P3P spec wg call Present Lorrie Cranor Rigo Wenning Brooks Dobbs Rob Horn Patrick Hung Joseph Reagle (Regrets: Giles, Jack, Matthias) 1. Task force reports - P3P beyond HTTP - Joseph Reagle Rigo did his action item and posted the information about the previously discussed P3P XML element. Discussion is continuing on the mailing list. If time permits, Joseph will try to capture this in his draft, at least as an item for further discussion. Joseph has concerns about declaring a new XML element that would need to be widely adopted. Joseph and Patrick will also discuss the possibility of Patrick taking over editing this TF document after Joseph's departure. - User agent behavior - Lorrie Cranor User agent task force has been making good progress. We recently got a lot of feedback on the translation and are in the process of discussing it. - Compact policies - Brian Zwit and Brooks Dobbs Brooks will schedule a task force call ASAP. - Article 10 vocabulary issues - Giles Hogben Giles was not on the call, but Lorrie reported that Giles had been in discussion with Diana about his proposed draft. Diana said the Article 10 group did not have time to discuss the draft in detail at their last meeting but the overall impression was that it did not address all their concerns. Lorrie and Giles have discussed with Diana that this draft is intended to address short term issues that can be dealt with in P3P 1.1 and that other concerns will continue to be discussed in the longer term. Giles will try to get them to provide more substantive feedback on his draft as soon as possible (hopefully by September). 2. Discussion of Ari's identified/identifiable/link clarification draft. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=167 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2003Jun/0030.html Overall people like this draft. Some folks had a few specific nits that they will send to the mailing list. Rigo had some concerns about conflicts with EU definitions and he will try to explain more on the mailing list. In general, people wanted to see more specific examples, especially with respect to data linked to cookies. Brooks has many ideas for examples to include and said Ari should contact him about this. 3. Discussion of Jack's Agent/Domain TF draft http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2003Jul/0011.html There were some questions about the goals of this proposal. People thought it was useful for companies to be able to declare that all of their multiple domains are owned by a single company and comply with the same policy, but there was less interest in being able to declare that companies belong to an ad network. The reason browsers are treating these as third party cookies is that is how consumers seem to want to see them treated. People saw some potential uses for the idea of the KNOWN-HOSTS element (although it needs to be expressed using the extension mechanism). There was less enthusiasm for allowing INCLUDE and EXCLUDE to include host name. That substantially complicates parsing and caching issues without bringing obvious advantages. There was a recognition that the CP aspect of this proposal was most important for practical reasons, and yet it seemed not to scale well in the third-party ad network context. 4. Our next call will be on July 23. (If you can't make it please let Lorrie know in advance so she can plan the agenda accordingly)
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 12:10:35 UTC