- From: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:25:19 +0100
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hello, The agenda for the weekly working group phone call is below. Sorry for not sending it earlier - I accidentially sent it to the wrong (editors-only) list. We look forward to a productive call at our standing time, Wednesdays at 9 am pacific / noon eastern / 6pm Central europe. Call in details are at the end. Chair: Matthias Schunter Editor: Roy Fielding Main topic: Tracking Preference Expression Feedback is welcome... Regards, matthias --------------------------- Administrative --------------------------- 1. Selection of scribe 2. Any comments on minutes from the last call: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-dnt-minutes 4. Date & Venue of next Face2face: Dates: - Jan 24, 2011, 10am Brussels Time - Jan 26, 2011, 5pm Brussels Time - Starting with the Standards Compliance Discussion Venue: - goal: Brussels Area --------------------------- Old business --------------------------- 5. Closing of issues that are marked "PENDING REVIEW": - The FPWD addresses a series of issues that are now marked 'pending review'. - If we agree that the resolution proposed is sufficient (unless new information appears), then we should close these issues: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/pendingreview ISSUE-4 ISSUE-13 ISSUE-78 ISSUE-81 ISSUE-82 ISSUE-84 --------------------------- New business --------------------------- 5. Status and next steps for OPEN issues for TPE: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues ISSUE-27 How should the "opt back in" mechanism be designed? ISSUE-51 Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal ISSUE-95 May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user? ISSUE-87 Should there be an option for the server to respond with "I don't know what my policy is" 6. Roy plans to consolidate inputs to address these issues. If we have time, he may report on his progress: ISSUE-47 Should the response from the server point to a URI of a policy (or an existing protocol) rather than a single bit in the protocol? ISSUE-48 Response from the server could both acknowledge receipt of a value and (separately) whether the server will honor it ISSUE-61 A site could publish a list of the other domains that are associated with them ISSUE-76 Should a server echo the DNT header to confirm receipt? ISSUE-80 Instead of responding with a Link: header URI, does it make sense to use a well-known location for this policy? ISSUE-90 Interaction of DNT with caching and intermediaries caching --------------------------- 98. Announce next meeting & adjourn 99. ================ Infrastructure ================= Zakim teleconference bridge: VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225) IRC Chat: irc.w3.org, port 6665, #dnt
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 10:26:04 UTC