- From: Jaye, Dan <DJaye@engagetech.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:47:10 -0400
- To: 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
-----Original Message----- From: Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 1997 4:04 AM To: Jaye, Dan Cc: 'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com' Subject: Re: FW: revised trusted cookie spec It was hard to separate your quotation from your statement, but I think you said: > My proposal does not put the privacy policy inside the state mgt > mechanism. A separate PICS-Label header is used. It merely > establishes how you relate cookie handling to privacy policies. Do > you think it is unnecessary to establish that link (from within the > http protocol)? I think a privacy policy should be more comprehensive than merely a policy about cookie handling, so a Pics-Label header that's solely useful for labelling cookies seems pretty useless to me. General privacy policy is addressed in by the P3 in the W3C. This only addresses cookies because the new cookie spec implements privacy policies that are incomplete. A standard PICS Label header is used because privacy policies will eventually be indicated using PICS labels... Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Thursday, 28 August 1997 08:51:33 UTC