RE: CfO on Issue 22 - Strong objections to both options ;-(

Aleecia,

 

I meant Tk: N (preferably) as a response to DNT: 1 , unless OOBC existed then it would be Tk: C

 

The response to DNT: 0 would be Tk: T if they were tracking but it could be Tk: N if they were not (even though consent had been given).

 

BTW the TSV (tracking status value i.e. C,N, T whatever) can also be conveyed in the TSR (or Status Object as it now become), which should be generated dynamically, for the whole site but possibly also for individual pages (using the status-id thing).

 

This means when a request is sent to /.well-known/dnt/{status-id} the “tracking” property is calculated in the same way, i.e. depending on request header values.

 

Mike

 

From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com] 
Sent: 29 June 2017 01:13
To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Cc: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>; Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CfO on Issue 22 - Strong objections to both options ;-(

 

Yikes. Tk:N makes utterly no sense to me (just re-read the spec to be sure,) so perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.

 

Anyone else care to have a go?

 

               Aleecia

 

On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com <mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com> > wrote:

 

Aleecia,

 

Yes Tk:C is only needed for OOBC. If DNT:1 or unset is sent then the server can reply saying it has detected consent (i.e. from the cookie state) by replying with Tk:C, but if the request had DNT:0 then that suffices to indicate consent (the cookie state would not matter). Usually  DNT:0 would come from a UA that had implemented the API, which the server had previously called to indicate consent. I would say the “correct” response then would be Tk: N, though other values would be technically valid.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com] 
Sent: 28 June 2017 16:40
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com <mailto:fielding@gbiv.com> >
Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org> >; public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>  (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> ) (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> ) <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> >
Subject: Re: CfO on Issue 22 - Strong objections to both options ;-(

 

 

On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald < <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com> aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote:

 

Of note, I plan to leave the table. I think T not C (as I asked to confirm in prior email) with C for out-of-band consent and not for DNT:0, but really, the spec isn't as crisp on that. It would be great to illustrate the intent here. And to get it right!

 

Meh. 

 

I’ve flipped back and forth on this a few times. I’m rather certain that DNT:0 *should* be C for consent in any sane world. It’s the whole point of a lot of things. Yet I also think the 6.5.mumble sections read as if C is only used for out-of-band consent, which may be inadvertent, or not.

 

Could someone who paid full attention while this section was drafted please let me know what the intent is? 

 

I am trying to match what has been decided, not to re-open old issues at the 11th hour. At this point if I do not like the answer it is, to quote someone we all know, my tough luck. I just want to get it right and help people understand. 

 

               Aleecia