- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:59:09 -0700
- To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Cc: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-id: <83F5A3F0-FD5D-44B3-98E4-2D8F70627D57@apple.com>
On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:32 , David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org> wrote: > ISSUE-112 (How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions?) should not be closed. I agree with Shane's last post on the issue. We should not toss out the *.domain.com model for speculative fear of misuse. And, we have not adequately explored the repercussions of not providing that option. The issue should remain open pending further exploration. I fear I may have missed Shane's last post. Do you have a link to it in the archives? Sorry! The issue was two-fold. If we allow suffix names, rather than fully-qualified names, then (a) the matching process is more complex and (b) we need rules such as in cookies to control (against) the use of public suffixes (see http://publicsuffix.org). These complicate both the specification and the implementation (though it's true that any UA has to do the public suffix control in their cookie code already). > > Thanks, > > David > > On 8/15/12 12:16 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote: >> Hi Team, >> >> >> in preparation for tomorrow's TPE call, I started assessing the status of our TPE-related ISSUES: >> >> I'd like to thank Roy and David for preparing the next major revision of the TPE spec! They have performed a huge push towards implementing all our prior discussions and draft agreements as updates to the TPE spec. As a consequence, many of our informal agreements are now documented in the text and we have the opportunity to make a large leap towards closing the remaining TPE issues. >> >> Enclosed is a list of issues that I believe satisfy the following criteria: >> - Have been discussed before >> - Proposed text is in TPE spec >> - I believe that all participants can live with the current text >> >> I would like to double-check that my perception is correct and then close these issues. >> >> PLEASE: >> - Double check that you can live with the proposed resolution and the current corresponding text in the TPE >> - Send any comments and clarifying questions to the mailing list >> - Send a note if you cannot live with one of the proposed resolutions to the chairs and editors at: >> team-tracking-editors@w3.org [In this case, some of the issues will be discussed further] >> >> DEADLINE: August 20 >> - If I do not get further input on any of the issues below, I plan to close them by August 20 >> >> >> Regards, >> matthias >> >> -----------------------------------------8>--- ISSUES to be closed + proposed Resolutions --------------------- >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/47 >> ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that describes the DNT practices of the server? >> RESOLUTION: >> - A policy attribute at the well-known URI may point to a site-wide policy (Section 5.4.1) >> - The response header may identify a more specific policy at a different URL (Section 5.3.2) >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/61 >> ISSUE-61: A site could publish a list of the other domains that are associated with them >> RESOLUTION: >> - "partners" attribute at the well-known URI identifies partner sites (Section 5.4.1) >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/84 >> ISSUE-84: Make DNT status available to JavaScript >> RESOLUTION: >> - Revised text in section 4.3.3 >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107 >> ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header? >> RESOLUTION: >> - Revised response header values in Section 5.2 and syntax in 5.3 >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112 >> ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? >> RESOLUTION: >> - Exceptions are granted for fully qualified domain names (Section 6.3.1) >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124 >> How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent (headers, URIs, ...)? >> RESOLUTION: >> - Well-known URI + Headers where the essential information needs to be provided with one of the mechanisms >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128 >> ISSUE-128: HTTP error status code to signal that tracking is required? >> RESOLUTION: >> - "409" ;-) >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130 >> ISSUE-130: User-granted Exceptions b) Web-wide Exception for Third Parties (thisthirdparty, anywhere) >> RESOLUTION: >> - We agreed that web-wide exceptions shall be possible. Text in Section 6.5 >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155 >> ISSUE-155: Remove the received member from tracking status >> RESOLUTION: >> - Removed attribute has been removed >> since we assume reliable communication > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 16:59:57 UTC