Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal

On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> Roy, 
> 
> On Wednesday 07 March 2012 04:18:22 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> But then you have the same as the header but you added another round
>>> trip.
>> Two, actually, but I am not worried about it because the tracking
>> status is not transferred on every response (unlike the current
>> header proposal).
> 
> In this case you need to define a range of URIs and a time the response 
> covers, because otherwise, the semantics of the question - response couple is 
> incomplete and will not allow to draw the legal conclusions we want to draw. 
> (consent, commitment)

I did.  In the proposal, Time is defined by 24hours or longer
if set by cache-control information.  Range is defined by the path member.

> So I maintain that you're exactly repeating P3P here. 
> 
> The smart thing about the DNT-header approach is that a resource is requested 
> with a DNT header and the response concerns exactly that resource. This is 
> scoping the semantics nicely and naturally without having to describe 
> everything in advance.

If that were true, the header field would have no value because
it only defines what is claimed to have happened in the past.

> The reference file you need if you set the response by 
> a reference file on the site was a monster in the past (P3P) and it will 
> always remain a monster. If people like monsters, so be it. But at least I've 
> told you that you are growing monsters ;)

Thanks,

....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 19:40:25 UTC