RE: ISSUE-59: Should the first party be informed about the DNT values sent to third parties

Matthias,

To me this discussion is dependent on the explicit/explicit decision.  If explicit/explicit is allowed, then I believe a new signal will be necessary to send to a web site operator that they may have a mixed user granted exception state (some 1, some 0) as it has no other way of knowing and would have to poll on all transactions.  Once we close on explicit/explicit, then I believe we'll know if we need a DNT:2 (mixed state, poll for details).

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Schunter [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] 
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:11 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: ISSUE-59: Should the first party be informed about the DNT values sent to third parties

Hi DNT team,


my suggestioin to resolve this issue (based on our revised user-granted
exception approach)

1. If a first party receives DNT;1, it can assume that its third parties
(in general) also receive DNT;1
2. If a first party receives DNT;0, it can assume that its third parties
(in general) also receive DNT;0
3. If it needs more information, it can call the exceptioin API
3. If it needs _reliable_ information, this must to be retrieved from
the third parties.

Why "in general"?
- In general, a site-wide exception for this first party should trigger
sending DNT;0 while else DNT;1 is sent
- The web-wide exceptions are implemented client side and user agents
must be considered unreliable.
- This simple signal cannot reflect the compexity of user preferences.
   The most simple example is that DNT;1 will be sent even if some third
parties have a web-wide exception.

Note that I believe that there is no need for more signaling (DNT;2, 3,
...). I hope you all agree (if not, please tell me so).

Comments / Feedback?


Regards,
matthias

Received on Sunday, 24 June 2012 22:59:20 UTC