- From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 18:26:26 -0700
- To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Cc: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Message-Id: <B85FF878-05A1-4C66-A36C-ED44976F3F40@w3.org>
Cleaned up minutes here: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-dnt-minutes My apologies for the delay in publication. A couple of logistical notes that came up: * We now have a regular teleconference slot officially listed: http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_4971 * The shared calendar has been updated to note that the weekly call is 90 minutes, not 60 minutes. * There were some issues with getting through on the teleconference line; I'm following up with W3C support staff. Thanks, Nick On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: > 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 Monday, 10 October 2011 01:26:15 UTC