Re: Comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tracking-dnt-20140424/

Hi Julian,

Thank you for your comments (last June) on the TPE Last Call Working Draft. The Tracking Protection Working Group has discussed each of the issues and proposed resolutions.

Editor Roy Fielding has provided summaries of the responses in each of the tracker issues for the Last Call product; I have provided links below. I would briefly summarize the resolutions as:
* updated HTTP references, as requested
* defined JSON with a reference to JSON, rather than ABNF

https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/247
https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/257

Please let us know if these changes or explanations resolve your concerns.

Thanks,
Nick Doty, W3C (for the Tracking Protection Working Group)

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0028.html

> On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:23 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> here are a few comments after a quick sanity check wrt IETF specs:
> 
> a) Please update the HTTPbis draft references (the RFCs have been published a few weeks ago).
> 
> b) The use of ABNF to define a JSON based format is ultra-fishy. Don't. Really. Seriously. Just state that the format *is* JSON, define the extensibility model (I'll assume "must-ignore"), and define the individual field names and values *after parsing as JSON*.
> 
> Best regards, Julian