Re: Agenda for June 05 call on TPE

Regrets, finals week.  

I've previously sent many thoughts on ISSUE-137 (favor a MUST for service provider flags) and ISSUE-161 (comfortable with a very narrowly scoped "testing" flag, concerned about a "disregard" flag).

Jonathan


On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

> Hi Team,
>  
> the goal of tomorrow's call is to give all open issues a final push towards completion!
> I will send a "batch closing email" for all potential candidates to be closed.  
>  
> The other open issues should be listed below...
>  
> Feedback / input / clarifications are welcome!
>  
>  
> Regards,
> matthias
>  
>  
> ---------------------------  
> Administrative
>   
> ---------------------------
>   
> 1.  Confirmation of scribe – glad to accept volunteer in advance
>   
> 2.  Offline-caller-identification:  
> If you intend to join the phone call, you must either 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.
>   
> 3. Review of overdue action items  
>  
> ---------------------------  
> TPE Discussions
> ---------------------------
>  ----
> ISSUE-137 -- Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s) -- pending review http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
>  
> Progress on David's action?  
>   
> ----
> ISSUE-200: Transitive exceptions
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/200
>  
> ACTION-203: Propose text (with help from Shane) about transitivity model
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/203
> Text from Shane/Rigo can be found here:  
> http://www.w3.org/mid/DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3140B1242@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com
>  
> Related?:
>  https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/396
>  
>  ----
> ISSUE-168: What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that they are taking advantage of a transferred exception?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/168
>  
> Proposal:  
> - "T" for transferred exception
> - Create action to add this letter to the spec  
>  
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> TPE: Issues where the status is unclear to me
> --------------------------------------------------  
> ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
> - We agreed that modifications should not be permited. Can we close this issue?
>  
> ISSUE-195: Flows and signals for handling out of band consent
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195
> - There is a proposal for a response "P". What is the right way forward?
>  
>  
> ---------------------------  
> TPE Towards closing the remaining issues
> ---------------------------
>  
> Issues that are IMHO due for a chairs decision:
>  
> 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
> - Alternative 1: Re-insert a service provider flag "s" based on a prior version of the TPE
> - Alternative 2: No insertion of a service provider flag "s", i.e., spec remains as it is
>  
>  
> ISSUE-151: User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/151
> - Alternative 1: Current text mandates the exception API (MUST)
> - Alternative 2: Do not mandate the exception API (SHOULD not MUST)
>  
> ISSUE-164: To what extent should the "same-party" attribute of tracking status resource be required
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164
> (A) Current draft: Resource is optional
> (B) Alternative proposal 1: If multiple domains on a page belong to the same party, then this fact SHOULD be declared using the same-party attribute
> (C) Alternative proposal 2: State that user agents MAY assume that additional elements that are hosted under a different URL and occur on a page and declare "intended for 1st party use" are malicious unless this URL is listed in the "same-party" attribute  
>  => Concrete text is needed to issue a call
>  
> 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
> (A) Current draft: Contains responses "!" (non-compliant) and "D" (request disregarded)
> (B) Alternative: remove these two responses
> Discuss:
> - More alternatives
> - Do we need a chair's resolution here?
>  
> ---------------------------  
>   
> 6.  Announce next meeting & adjourn
>   
>   
> ================ Infrastructure =================
>   
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org (file:///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
>   
>  
>  
>  
>  
>