Re: Call on Monday

Folks, the only question we should discuss regarding 10.1 is whether the text is consistent with the WG decision that is long since closed. Reopening that discussion, or pretending that sending the field by default doesn't violate that decision, is not an option at this time.

The reason 10.1 exists is because several people have pointedly misunderstood the WG decision and proposed protocol-violating rules for the sake of imagined privacy considerations. This has already been demonstrated multiple times by people outside the WG, so arguing that the section is redundant is pointless. Providing the rationale behind that decision might result in less disinformation being presented to regulators.

Whether or not you agree with the WG decision is only relevant if you have new information to add. So far, I have seen nothing but confirmation that sending the field by default will result in zero implementations on the server side.

....Roy


> On Aug 21, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> I will not attend the call; regrets.
> 
> My remark: subsection .1 is redundant as it is already explained in subsection 5.2. Moreover, subsection 10.1 is not a privacy consideration as such. It has a clarifying function, which is already addressed in subsection 5.2.
> 
> Therefore, I suggest deleting subsection 10.1.
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> -----Original message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
> Sent: Sunday, August 20 2017, 5:33 pm
> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Call on Monday
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> as announced in our call 2 weeks ago, the review period for the final
> draft ends tomorrow (before our call).
> 
> In the call, we will discuss any potential issues that have been
> identified during the review period.
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
>