Agenda for 2011-10-12 DNT Workgroup Meeting

Hi Team,

enclosed is the agenda for tomorrow's call.

After a summary of the ongoing discussions on 1st parties and their
behavior under DNT, we will focus on the DNT protocol (Roy Fielding
being the corresponding editor) with a particular focus on the
response message.

Feel free to post response proposals on the mailing list and/or
discuss existing proposals.


Regards,
matthias

================ 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

================ Agenda for 2011-10-12 WG Call =================

Details: See calendar at
 https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=is1g67kems9ijeroa7ud7dhhg4%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles

------------
Administrative
------------

1. Selection of scribe

2. Any comments on minutes from the last call:
http://www.w3.org/2011/10/04-dnt-minutes.html

3. Announcement: Division of Work between the Chairs:


------------
Old business
------------

4.  Review of action items:
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/

5. Summary of discussions on 1st and 3rd parties addition to
strawman-proposals


---------------------------
New business: Tracking Preferences Expression

Chair:  Matthias Schunter
Editor: Roy Fielding
---------------------------

---------------------------
6. Response Headers


  A) ISSUES
	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?

  B) Presentation of Proposals on the table


  C) Discussion

  D) Steps towards a strawman
    - Homework/Actions
	- Tasks for the editor


---------------------------
9. Announce next meeting & Adjourn

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 12:50:54 UTC