W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Possibly closing ISSUE-197 without a call for objections

From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:55:05 -0500
Message-ID: <52D711C9.50401@appnexus.com>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Justin,

Apologies if I misunderstood. I'm ok with David's language replacing the 
para. I'm not ok with that final sentence about what might be considered 
misleading. I thought we'd had agreement about that one anyway on a 
previous call.

-David

On 2014-01-15 5:08 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
> Based on today's call and subsequent discussion with David Wainberg, 
> I'm not sure we need to go to CfO on this one.  No one expressed any 
> objections on the call today, and David Wainberg has responded that 
> he's OK with the proposed revision.  Here is what David Singer has 
> proposed (CAPS language is new):
>
>     A tracking status value of D means that the origin server is
>     unable or unwilling to respect a tracking preference received from
>     the requesting user agent. An origin server that sends this
>     tracking status value must detail within the server's
>     corresponding privacy policy the conditions under which a tracking
>     preference might be disregarded.
>
>     For example, an origin server might disregard the DNT field
>     received from specific user agents (or via specific network
>     intermediaries) that are deemed to be non-conforming, might be
>     collecting additional data from specific source network locations
>     due to prior security incidents, or might be compelled to
>     disregard certain DNT requests to comply with a local law,
>     regulation, or order.
>
>     NOTE: THIS SPECIFICATION WAS WRITTEN ASSUMING THAT THE D TRACKING
>     STATUS VALUE WOULD ONLY BE USED IN SITUATIONS THAT CAN BE
>     ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED TO USERS AS AN EXCEPTION TO NORMAL BEHAVIOR.
>      IF THIS TURNS OUT NOT TO BE THE CASE, EITHER THE LOGIC THAT IS
>     LEADING TO THE D SIGNAL MAY NEED RE-EXAMINATION, OR THIS
>     SPECIFICATION, OR BOTH. An origin server that responds with D in
>     ways that are inconsistent with their other published and
>     unexpired claims regarding tracking is likely to be considered
>     misleading.
>
>
> The capitalized language replaces this sentence in the prior version: 
> "Note that the D tracking status value in meant to be used only in 
> situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception 
> to normal behavior."
>
> If you object to the revised language, let me know; otherwise, we will 
> close the issue without a call for objections.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 22:55:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:21 UTC