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

Re: Agenda for 2011-10-05 TPWG call

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 18:26:26 -0700
Cc: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-Id: <B85FF878-05A1-4C66-A36C-ED44976F3F40@w3.org>
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:26 UTC