Define the intended implementer

[plehegar]

This is a tracker issue. Only discuss things here if they are privacy group internal meta-discussions about the issue. Contribute to the actual discussion at the following link:

§ w3c/trace-context#392

[samuelweiler]

triaged. needs resolution

[samuelweiler]

Also related to the charter: #101

[samuelweiler]

@npdoty Would you take a look at the related issues I filed on the Distributed Tracing WG charter and let me know if you're happy with the proposed resolutions? Opened two issues: w3c/distributed-tracing-wg#35 and w3c/distributed-tracing-wg#36

[npdoty]

I don't have any strong feelings on w3c/distributed-tracing-wg#36, consent may certainly be an issue depending on what functionality is developed.

I do think getting a better sense of integration with browsers w3c/distributed-tracing-wg#35 is an important question to figure out early. There may be privacy issues to how tracing headers are used when they don't involve any changes to browser APIs, but there are much more significant questions if browser APIs are going to be changed here, as that would impact the capabilities of the Web platform and the privacy threat model we are trying to work towards.

[npdoty]

I'm not sure "define the intended implementer" needs to be a PING needs-resolution issue. While the discussion started in that particular github issue, there are other issues for the substantive privacy-related questions raised in the review. The spec is currently clear on the implementers (vendors of distributed tracing systems, rather than browsers or sites). And we have a separate issue re chartering and whether Distributed Tracing will recommend changes to browser APIs.