W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > March 2004

RE: comments on latest domain relationship proposal?

From: Dobbs, Brooks <bdobbs@doubleclick.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:31:28 -0500
Message-ID: <D464F551A951ED4E804B9713B519E6C902941F23@NYC-EX101.doubleclick.net>
To: "'Humphrey, Jack'" <JHumphrey@coremetrics.com>, "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>

I think there is really good thinking here but I think we are overloading
this to our potential detriment.  I think the problem we would REALLY like
the UA folks to resolve is that there should be a simple way for site.com,
site.net, site.uk, and site-inc.com to say they are truly the same entity
(a=b=c=d).  I think that this is clarification that UAs may actually adopt
(largely because it is within consumer expectation).

However, as nice as it may be to express agent relationships, it is a can of
worms.  Assume you succeed...  One question it will beg is - what if you are
NOT listed as an agent but you appear within the site!  If you appear on a
1st party site and aren't declaring an agent relationship or seen in the
known hosts of the parent site - what the heck are you doing there?  Does
the site not control its own content?  We may know that it is because this
is optional, but it is a lot or reliance to be entrusted to an optional
element, particularly when it may be extremely difficult for 3rd parties
acting as agents to contextually know where they are to appear and
dynamically generate headers accordingly.  It almost forces the use of
policy ref in the P3P header.  Equally, while sites like to talk about
controlling data collected through the site, it may be extremely difficult
to maintain an active known hosts (in an agents context) listing.

Even if you get past this, there is still the up hill battle of consumer
expectation.  IMHO large UA makers enjoy (probably based on consumer
feedback) differentiating parties the way they are presently doing.  They
went out of their way to treat 1st and 3rd party cookies differently even
though the spec makes no such distinction.

Just thoughts...


-----Original Message-----
From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org [mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Humphrey, Jack
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 5:30 PM
To: 'public-p3p-spec'
Subject: comments on latest domain relationship proposal?

Haven't seen any comments on the latest domain relationship proposal:

Please see the copy I sent to the list previously if you want to see the
bolded sections that changed from the previous version of the draft.

Would love to get this wrapped up soon, please get your comments in before
Wednesday if possible.



-----Original Message-----
From: Humphrey, Jack [mailto:JHumphrey@coremetrics.com]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:00 AM
To: 'public-p3p-spec'
Subject: RE: AGENDA: MONDAY 4 March P3P Spec Call

Here is the new draft of the domain relationships proposal. I have
incorporated all of the comments I've received and also tried to clarify
some of the relationship questions.

Changed sections are bolded so you can quickly scan what changed. Rigo, can
you incorporate this draft into the working draft now (removing my bolding,
of course)?

Thanks. Sorry for the delay.


-----Original Message-----
From: Lorrie Cranor [mailto:lorrie@cs.cmu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:00 PM
To: 'public-p3p-spec'
Subject: AGENDA: MONDAY 4 March P3P Spec Call

The next P3P specification group conference call will be on
Monday, March 1, 2004, 11 am - 12 pm US Eastern. Dial-in
information is available at



1. Agent and domain relationships
(Jack please circulate new draft)

2. Primary purpose specification
(Dave please circulate a draft)

3. Clarify what we mean by data linked to a cookie

4. Proposal to deprecate compact policies

5. P3P Generic attribute for XML applications

6. Set date/time for next call
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 18:31:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:18 UTC