W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2012

Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20]

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:32:29 -0400
Message-ID: <5031070D.1030204@networkadvertising.org>
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
ISSUE-112 (How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions?) 
should not be closed. I agree with Shane's last post on the issue. We 
should not toss out the *.domain.com model for speculative fear of 
misuse. And, we have not adequately explored the repercussions of not 
providing that option. The issue should remain open pending further 
exploration.

Thanks,

David

On 8/15/12 12:16 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
>
> in preparation for tomorrow's TPE call, I started assessing the status 
> of our TPE-related ISSUES:
>
> I'd like to thank Roy and David for preparing the next major revision 
> of the TPE spec! They have performed a huge push towards implementing 
> all our prior discussions and draft agreements as updates to the TPE 
> spec. As a consequence, many of our informal agreements are now 
> documented in the text and we have the opportunity to make a large 
> leap towards closing the remaining TPE issues.
>
> Enclosed is a list of issues that I believe satisfy the following 
> criteria:
>    - Have been discussed before
>    - Proposed text is in TPE spec
>    - I believe that all participants can live with the current text
>
> I would like to double-check that my perception is correct and then 
> close these issues.
>
> PLEASE:
> - Double check that you can live with the proposed resolution and the 
> current corresponding text in the TPE
> - Send any comments and clarifying questions to the mailing list
> - Send a note if you cannot live with one of the proposed resolutions 
> to the chairs and editors at:
> team-tracking-editors@w3.org [In this case, some of the issues will be 
> discussed further]
>
> DEADLINE: August 20
> - If I do not get further input on any of the issues below, I plan to 
> close them by August 20
>
>
> Regards,
> matthias
>
> -----------------------------------------8>--- ISSUES to be closed + 
> proposed Resolutions ---------------------
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/47
> ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that 
> describes the DNT practices of the server?
> RESOLUTION:
> - A policy attribute at the well-known URI may point to a site-wide 
> policy (Section 5.4.1)
> - The response header may identify a more specific policy at a 
> different URL (Section 5.3.2)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/61
> ISSUE-61: A site could publish a list of the other domains that are 
> associated with them
> RESOLUTION:
> - "partners" attribute at the well-known URI identifies partner sites 
> (Section 5.4.1)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/84
> ISSUE-84: Make DNT status available to JavaScript
> RESOLUTION:
> - Revised text in section 4.3.3
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107
> ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header?
> RESOLUTION:
> - Revised response header values in Section 5.2 and syntax in 5.3
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
> ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112>
> RESOLUTION:
> - Exceptions are granted for fully qualified domain names (Section 6.3.1)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124
> How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent (headers, 
> URIs, ...)? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124>
> RESOLUTION:
> - Well-known URI + Headers where the essential information needs to be 
> provided with one of the mechanisms
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128
> ISSUE-128: HTTP error status code to signal that tracking is required? 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128>
> RESOLUTION:
> - "409" ;-)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130
> ISSUE-130: User-granted Exceptions b) Web-wide Exception for Third 
> Parties (thisthirdparty, anywhere) 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130>
> RESOLUTION:
> - We agreed that web-wide exceptions shall be possible. Text in 
> Section 6.5
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155
> ISSUE-155: Remove the received member from tracking status 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155>
> RESOLUTION:
> - Removed attribute has been removed
>   since we assume reliable communication
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 15:32:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:53 UTC