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 Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:59:09 -0700
Cc: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <83F5A3F0-FD5D-44B3-98E4-2D8F70627D57@apple.com>
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>

On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:32 , David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> 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.

I fear I may have missed Shane's last post.  Do you have a link to it in the archives?  Sorry!

The issue was two-fold.  If we allow suffix names, rather than fully-qualified names, then (a) the matching process is more complex and (b) we need rules such as in cookies to control (against) the use of public suffixes (see http://publicsuffix.org). These complicate both the specification and the implementation (though it's true that any UA has to do the public suffix control in their cookie code already).


> 
> 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?
>> 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, ...)?
>> 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?
>> 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)
>> 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
>> RESOLUTION:
>> - Removed attribute has been removed
>>   since we assume reliable communication
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 16:59:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:32 UTC