W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

RE: FW: revised trusted cookie spec

From: Jaye, Dan <DJaye@engagetech.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:47:10 -0400
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=CMG%l=ANDEXC01-970828154710Z-9330@wilexc01.cmgi.com>
To: 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4227

-----Original Message-----
From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
Sent:	Thursday, August 28, 1997 4:04 AM
To:	Jaye, Dan
Cc:	'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'
Subject:	Re: FW: revised trusted cookie spec

It was hard to separate your quotation from your statement, but I 
you said:

> My proposal does not put the privacy policy inside the state mgt
> mechanism.  A separate PICS-Label header is used.  It merely
> establishes how you relate cookie handling to privacy policies.  Do 
> you think it is unnecessary to establish that link (from within the 
> http protocol)?

I think a privacy policy should be more comprehensive than merely a
policy about cookie handling, so a Pics-Label header that's solely
useful for labelling cookies seems pretty useless to me.

General privacy policy is addressed in by the P3 in the W3C.  This 
only addresses cookies because the new cookie spec implements privacy 
policies that are incomplete.  A standard PICS Label header is used 
because privacy policies will eventually be indicated using PICS 

Received on Thursday, 28 August 1997 08:51:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC