Agenda for 06 December 2012 TPE call - V01

Hi Team,

V01 of our agenda for tomorrow's call

Regards,
matthias



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

1. Selection of scribe

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

2. Review of overdue action items: 
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owne 
<http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner>
    NOTE:
      - To allow Peter Swire some time to get accomodated, we push the 
compliance-related actions to Jan 2013
         (you may do them earlier nevertheless...)

3.Quick check that callers are identified

---------------------------
4. Revised approach to Exceptions
---------------------------

David Singer provided text describing the new approach that was outlined 
during our last F2F:
http://www.w3.org/mid/DD4C0887-F30F-42AD-BD75-01AFEEC02968@apple.com>
I would like to gather feedback and decide whether it is OK to
  a) put this text in the spec (as an option)
  b) remove the existing text in the spec (which would make the new text 
the only option)

---------------------------
5. ISSUES marked PENDING REVIEW
---------------------------

Goal:
- Agree on adding the proposed text (or create action for writing 
alternative text)

ISSUE-113: How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112

On these issues IMHO the status is as follows:
- If a site-wide exception is requested, all subdomains are 
automatically included
- This issue is only relevant for explicit/explicit lists of domains (if 
the site uses them)
- An original proposal (from Ian) used cookie-like handling
- There is a need for wildcards (see note from David Wainberg)
    and if we agree that wildcards are useful, we should discuss the "how".


ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
     Review non-normative text by Nick and agree that it is OK to put 
into the spec.

ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests 
but does not necessarily initiate them?
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
       Proposed text (by david and nick): "Software outside of the user 
agent that causes a DNT header to be sent (or modifies existing headers) 
MUST NOT
    do so without following the requirements of this section; such 
software is responsible for assuring the expressed preference reflects 
the user's intent."

---------------------------
6. ISSUES marked OPEN
---------------------------

Goal: review open issues at 
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2
and assign actions to them

ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory?
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164

My understanding of the minutes is that we agreed in Amsterdam:
- keep a MAY (optional)
- Say that if a site that loads additional content "to be used in 1st 
party context" (flag: 1)
    from other domains, this content may not work properly unless this 
domain is desclared as "same-party"
- If this approach is still OK, I suggest to create an action to textify it.


6. Announce next meeting & adjourn

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

Zakim teleconference bridge:
VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
IRC Chat: irc.w3.org <http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt

*****