- From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:31:24 -0700
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-Id: <02FD65D7-2D7C-4FFD-A79E-C35964807D7A@aleecia.com>
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: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/28-dnt-minutes.html 3. Old business Review of action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/ (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