Re: Agenda for September 19, 2012 call

Traveling during the call, unfortunately. I've sent my thoughts on the service provider flag quite a few times. In short: very important use cases, negligible burden on the margin. I strongly favor a mandatory service provider flag.

Jonathan



On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 10:34 PM, David Singer wrote:

> My regrets for this call; I will do my best to monitor on IRC, but I have a conflicting standards meeting
> 
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:52 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org (mailto:mts-std@schunter.org)> wrote:
> > ps: no need to time-travel: now with the correct (tomorrow's) date ;-)
> > 
> > Chair: Matthias
> > 
> > Main topic:    Publication of TPE spec as working draft
> >  - Discussion of open issues
> > 
> > ---------------------------
> > Administrative
> > ---------------------------
> > 
> > 1. Selection of scribe 
> > 
> > ---------------------------
> > Old business
> > ---------------------------
> > 
> > 2.  Review of overdue action items:  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/) 
> > 
> > 3. Any comments on published minutes
> > 
> > 4. Quick check that callers are identified
> > 
> > 5. Feedback on the working groups tri-state decision
> >     http://www.w3.org/mid/95ECA317-2FF0-46D8-B2F9-52F17CD5F9BA@aleecia.com
> > 
> > --------------------------- 
> > New business
> > ---------------------------
> > 
> > 6. Publication of the TPE spec as working draft:
> >  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
> >  Are there objections against creating a snapshot of this document to be published as our next TPE working draft?    
> > 
> > 7. Discuss open issues. Goal is to either close the issue or else assign an action that brings us towards being able to close the issue.
> > 
> > ISSUE 137: Service provider flag 
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
> > - Report on progress made: 
> > - Tom raised a usecase that it should be possible to delineate the boundaries of a parties
> > services providers (in the absence of this flag) may inhibit this usecase since 
> > service providers would be "part of" multiple first parties
> > - Discuss next steps?
> > ISSUE 116 JScript DOM Properties
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/116
> > Review proposed changes by Nick:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0114.html
> > 
> > ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site specific exceptions
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
> > - Discuss Davids post:
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Aug/0046.html
> > - Next steps?
> > 
> > ISSUE-138: How can providers without HTML real-estate obtain exceptions?
> > https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
> > - Discuss Alex concern
> > 
> > 8. (if time): Screen RAISED issues to decide which issues to open and what actions to assign:
> >  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2
> > 
> > 99. 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 
> > 
> > ***** 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
> 
>