Hadley: not too much progress. Lukasz put a draft of our conversation together. Covers the variety of privacy modes and notes the diversity involved. Have some feedback that I'd like to generate for the doc and can relay to Lukasz.

Dan: I'd love to help; let's get together and provide the feedback jointly; can return to the group with an updated document.

Peter: will revisit in a few weeks.

Lukasz: let's simply publish the Findings asap.

ACTION: As noted above.

Lukasz: We discussed in Paris; wrote some notes from our Findings. Would like to have some short findings that highlight the Privacy mode. Should we continue with creating a Finding?

Dan: Is there a "mini" finding that we could publish about having "found" Privacy modes? E.g., here's some ways in which privacy modes are different; here's how they impact specification development? We see that many specs refer to "privacy mode" as a special case to be considered; yet, there is no document that defines Privacy mode. On the other hand, no one wants to write it down...

Alex: We've also noted that brwosers that implement this are doing a "poor job" at making a session "private".

Lukasz: Does everyone have the link? I have an older doc that could be a start to the Finding we'd like to write?

Dan: Perhaps me, Lukasz, Hadley could work on this to make it a bare-minimum doc to have the TAG state what issues we see. Should be a small Finding#. If we do something small it can have an impact.

Tess: Concerned with having a referenceable definition of Privacy Mode could try to define some things in terms of that reference. Should we be encouraging this? I want Privacy mode to improve. I don't want to constrain implementations. The term in the specs could be an "attractive nuisance".

Dan: We could say "don't reference Privacy mode in specs". [tbc i don't think we should say this]

David: We can distinguish between a feature that has a Privacy mode angle, and a set of privacy mode things that imply they are qualifications to be met.

Dan: Can we avoid falling into the trap of setting a low bar that inhibits innovation, while at the same time puts a stake in the ground? Propose bumping to the F2F and do a full break-out session on this.

Alex: Having a proposal ready at the F2F, will be great.

Dan: I could draft something up?