W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2013

DNT:Agenda for April 17 DNT Call

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:58:33 +0200
Message-ID: <516D12B9.50800@schunter.org>
To: "<public-tracking@w3.org> Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>
--------------------------

Administrative

Chair:  Matthias Schunter

---------------------------

1.  Confirmation of scribe  glad to accept volunteer  -- no volunteer 
thus far.

2. Offline-caller-identification:

If you intend to join the phone call, youmusteither associate your phone 
number with your IRC username once you've joined the call (command: 
"Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in my case), or 
let Nick know your phone number ahead of  time. If you are not 
comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone number, 
please email your name and phone number to npdoty@w3.org 
<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce (in fact, eliminate) the time 
spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note that if your number is 
not identified and you do not respond to off-the-phone reminders via 
IRC, you will be dropped from the call.

---------------------------

Publication of next set of Working Drafts

---------------------------


We plan to publish our next set of working drafts:


Tracking Preference Expression:
  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html


Compliance:
  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html


We would like to formally approve this publication as a group and/or 
gather fixes that need to be done before publication. The goal of a 
Working Draft is to inform the public about the current state of our 
internal discussion. Note that publishing a working draft does not mean 
that all participants can live with all parts of the document. 
Furthermore, the working drafts do not claim to resolve all issues yet. 
However, a working draft should correctly document the state of issues. 
I.e., open issues should be documented in the corresponding section.


We will quickly walk through the sections of both document and collect 
final fixes that are needed before publication.



---------------------------

TPE related discussions

---------------------------


---

ISSUE-161 Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance or 
rejecting DNT? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161>
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161



The current TPE declares two indicators:
  "!" This resource does not claim to comply.
  "D" The site has chosen to chosen to disregard a DNT signal

The goal of the "!" signal is to allow sites to signal if they are 
non-compliant (e.g., for testing or while building their DNT systems or 
if they have legacy resources that cannot be made compliant). Posting a 
"!" everywhere is equivalent (I hope) to removing all DNT info from a 
site (tracking status resource and tracking response).

The goal of the "D" signal is to allow sites to, e.g.,  reject signals 
that they deem unreliable.

I would like to understand the concerns with this proposal and assign 
actions for providing alternative texts/proposals.

---
ISSUE-195: Flows and signals for handling out of band consent
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195

The current TPE spec declares a signal "C" that indicates that the site 
does not follow the TPE rules declared for "1" or "3" since it [is 
certain that] it has received out of band consent for the currently 
visiting user. If this signal is sent, then the site MUST post more info 
accessible via "control" link.

Ronan Hefferman raised a concern that is some cases this approach is 
insufficient. I would like to discuss this concern and understand 
whether our TPE spec requires extending/improving in any way.
---
ISSUE-168: What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that they 
are taking advantage of a transferred exception?
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/168
Description:

    In section 6.7 of the TPE (transfer of exception to another third
    party) there is a requirement to signal that this has happened, but
    the suggested value doesn't seem right, and may not be in line with
    the final set of qualifiers. A suitable signal should be found.


8.  Announce next meeting & adjourn

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

Zakim teleconference bridge:

VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org <file://localhost/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

*****
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 08:58:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:09 UTC