Re: ACTION-709: Write some examples for 2.5.3

Thanks. It makes complete sense. The "persistent" term in 2.5.1 confused 
me a bit.


Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
> Francois,
> The part that would be "out of scope" (meaning I think that the CT
> Guidelines will not address specific functions/behaviors in support of
> it) would be the non-"session settings", i.e. the settings that are
> statically set for/by the user through out-of-band means. These are not
> "per session" since they exist before and beyond each session, and
> through their use the user never needs to be bothered with prompts for
> the related functions.
> These are different from the T&C's in that they typically express
> service features via which the user can personalize the service, and not
> global conditions beyond any user's control.
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Daoust [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:52 AM
> To: Sullivan, Bryan
> Cc: public-bpwg-ct
> Subject: Re: ACTION-709: Write some examples for 2.5.3
> Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
>> Francois,
>> Slight modification/addition to your examples:
>> The preferences of users and of servers MAY be ascertained by means
> outside the scope of this document. These means include but are not
> limited to:
>> - the use by transforming proxies of a disallow-list of Web sites for
> which content transformation is known to be useless and/or to break
> delivered content.
>> - the use by the transforming proxies of an allow-list of Web sites
> for which content transformation is known to be necessary.
> No problem with "disallow-allow".
>> - user static preferences, e.g. provisioned by their CT service
> provider or directly by the user through self-care web sites.
> I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you talking about persistent
> expression of preferences as listed in 2.5.1?
> lines/080313#d0e331
> If that's the case, that's not totally out-of-scope.
> If not, could you clarify?
>> - terms and conditions of service, as agreed upon between the user and
> the CT service provider.
> Agreed.

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 07:24:56 UTC