Re: Concerns raised today for header design

Quick response to one point, inline below:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2012, Matthias Schunter wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> enclosed are the concerns that were raised during today's roundtable.
> While they were raised while discussing Tom's proposal, they are
> viable input for the alternative version that is to be developed.
>
> Matthias
>
> ----------8<---
>
> - Too complex:
>  a)   Providers were concerned that identifying and sending
>  the 'right' response code may create additional cost.
>  E.g., knowing whether you are a 1st or 3rd party may
>  occur extra cost even if what you are doing is
>  permissible in both cases (e.g., no tracking).
>
> As I recall, this example was discussed previously on a call, and the
outcome was that sites would not be asked to make the distinction "I (am /
am not) a first party" but rather would make the distinction "I (do / do
not) assert first party status".   A site that wanted to make use of the
extra latitude available to first parties would have to assert first party
status.  But a site that was going to behave within the third-party rules
could just send "I do not assert ..." without needing to figure out whether
it was a first or third party.