W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2011

Agenda for 2011-10-04 TPWG call

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:31:24 -0700
Message-Id: <02FD65D7-2D7C-4FFD-A79E-C35964807D7A@aleecia.com>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hello - please find the agenda for the weekly working group phone call below. We look forward to a productive call at our standing time, Wednesdays at 9 am pacific / noon eastern / 18:00 central european. Call in details are at the end.

1. Selection of scribe

2. Any comments on minutes from the last call:

3. Old business
 Review of action items:
(Note: we will skip actions 8 - 12, since we discuss them explicitly in new business. If you have comments on ACTION-1, clarification of distinctions to "opt back in" for ISSUE-27 and ISSUE-63, please discuss here.)

4. New business
	People making proposals will please summarize them in about five minutes, and then we will discuss. Related issues: ISSUE-10, ISSUE-14. Starting discussion with third parties:
	Thomas Lowenthal on what DNT means to a third party [ACTION-8]
	David Wainberg on what DNT means to a third party [ACTION-12]
Moving to first parties:
	Thomas Lowenthal on what first parties must do [ACTION-9]
	Jonathan Mayer on what first parties must / must not do [ACTION-10, ACTION-11]

Moving to discussion of response headers. Anything that does not get a fairly quick consensus will move to action items to write proposals. We will get through as much as we have time for, in order:
	ISSUE-81	Do we need a response at all from server?
	ISSUE-51	Should 1st party have any response to DNT signal
	ISSUE-79	Should a server respond if a user sent DNT:0?
	ISSUE-76	Should a server echo the DNT header to confirm receipt?
	ISSUE-48	Response from the server could both acknowledge receipt of a
value and (separately) whether the server will honor it
	ISSUE-87	Should there be an option for the server to respond with "I
don't know what my policy is"
	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-80	Instead of responding with a Link: header URI, does it make
sense to use a well-known location for this policy?

5. Announce next meeting & Adjourn

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

Zakim teleconference bridge:
VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
Phone +1617761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
IRC Chat:
IRC: irc.w3.org, port 6665, #dnt

Aleecia M. McDonald // Senior Privacy Researcher @ Mozilla // w3c@aleecia.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 21:31:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:25 UTC