Agenda for 28 November 2012 call - V02

V02: Added agenda item #6 at the end
---

Hi Team,

enclosed V01 of our agenda for Wednesday.
Comments are welcome! (in particular if I overlooked any information on 
the issues listed).

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>

3.Quick check that callers are identified

---------------------------
4. ISSUES marked PENDING REVIEW
---------------------------

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

ISSUE-21: Enable external audit of DNT compliance
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/21
Are we OK with adding the text proposal by Kevin to our spec:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0000.html

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
- The current approach requires explicit listing of all sub-domains
- Is this current approach OK or do we need to text alternatives?

ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first 
party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s)
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137

IMHO:
- The minutes at http://www.w3.org/2012/10/05-dnt-minutes
    contain some text on ISSUE-137
- No action is assigned
- TODO: Discuss and define way forward

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."

---------------------------
5. 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. Next steps on the compliance doc (Aleecia, last 30mins)

7. 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

*****