Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

On Tuesday 05 June 2012 13:32:09 Tamir Israel wrote:
> I'm not clear: are there obligations to communicate NACK responses
> to  the end user if DNT-1 is set by UA default?

Sending a DNT header does not mean it gets accepted. So there is 
always some kind of response (via WKL or headers) and not only in 
case of DNT;1 setting as UA default. The kind of response is under 
debate.
> 
> > So I say, with defaults or without, you can't force a service
> > to honor DNT;1 until they've sent you an ACK! If we violate
> > this basic principle, I will start to send contracts to all
> > those in favor of the violation of that principle and request
> > that they do what I have written down in the contract.
> > 
> > Is getting a NACK on a DNT;1 the end of the world? No! The
> > browser knows now that the service is not willing to apply
> > DNT;1 rules and can react accordingly. I can show you in
> > Seattle what that potentially can mean. I would e.g. hope
> > that the browser-bundle would start TOR on demand for that
> > situation.
> 
> Is there something in the spec that would require this? I think
> making  the UA the enforcer might be problematic, as per P3P....

Of course not! A user agent _may_ offer help and trigger all kinds 
of protections. But it isn't obliged to do so.
> 
> I appreciate the desire to avoid dictating server responses and
> stick to  explaining  what is being 'expressed' by each signal.
> Yes, legal regimes can impose 'fictional' DNT-1 defaults onto
> servers, but I think that can be precluded if some UA/server
> process is set up to manage 'disagreements'.

The disagreement is managed by the exception mechanism we have. For 
the UA, there is no response to disagreements specified. If you want 
a minimum reaction of the UA, write your suggestion to the WG.

Rigo

Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 17:55:10 UTC