Platform for Privacy Preference Project (P3P)
		  Format and Protocol Working Group
			  Draft White Paper

I. INTRODUCTION

This paper extends the work started in the earlier P3P Working Groups
by working through details of the user/service interactions that take
place as a user traverses the Web.  It is our intention to provide
sufficient grounding that the next step, a detailed technical
specification of the "bits and bytes," will be a straightforward
technical task.  Toward that end, we provide in this paper an English
language description of the scenarios that form the core of the design
as well as the messages (and their content) required to make the
scenarios real.

II. SCOPE

The basic idea in all of these scenarios is that the user (or
automated user agent) and the service (always an automated agent)
engage in a negotiation in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable
set of information practices to be applied to a specified set of
information.  Some important points about the scope of the current
Working Group are:

1. The language used to specify these practices is being created by
   another W3C Working Group.  It is our working premise that the
   precise terms and conditions will not materially affect either the
   format of the messages needed to convey them or the kinds of
   negotiation steps required to arrive at agreement.

2. This Working Group is tasked with creating a "universal set" of
   negotiation primitives that can be used to arrive at agreement, as
   well as answering questions about signatures on these primitives,
   requirements on the order of use of the primitives and so forth.

3. This Working Group (and, indeed, W3C itself) is *not* tasked with
   defining "value add" work that applies only to the user or service
   sides of the negotiation.  In particular, we will not define a
   language for describing either the strategy or the tactics to be
   followed during the negotiation.

4. This Working Group is *not* tasked with creating a transportable
   format for moving privacy preferences between users or from one
   user machine to another.  Similarly, it is *not* tasked with
   transportable formats for privacy practices.

III. SCENARIOS, OVERVIEW

A. Minimal (best case)
B. One-round Negotiation, Service Initiated
   i. via reject
   ii. via user (counter) proposal
C. Service requests data without proposal
   i. accepted
   ii. request for proposal
D. User walks away

IV. NEGOTIATION PRIMITIVES

A. Request for Proposal (will/won't require signature in specified format)
B. Here's A Proposal
C. Here's Why I Refuse
D. I Agree
E. Request for Data
F. Here's Your Data

V. SCENARIOS, DETAILED

VI. FORMATS: REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS

A. Proposal
B. Refusal
C. Request for Data
D. Data
E. Agreement