Re: ACTION-169 ISSUE-61 same-party relations

Rigo, thanks for taking this on. Is my understanding correct that this language simply requires that a site may only claim affiliate sites as long as those sites also honor DNT?

On May 4, 2012, at 4:38 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <> wrote:

> Hi all, 
> at our Washington F2F meeting, I was tasked to write up text describing "if 
> your privacy policies don't match, don't claim an associated domain". This 
> was subsequent to a discussion on 12 April:
> saying:
> Rigo: If we allow for lists where somebody can say "a,b,c,d,e belong to me 
> and are the same" and A responds that they honor DNT, and the rest don't, 
> and A says 'not my business', then you go into a problem saying that if you 
> state that others belong to you, you have to take responsibility for that
> This addresses Section 5.2.2 Representation of the Tracking Preference 
> Expression Specification:
> representation
> I suggest to add the following text: after the paragraph starting with 
> "An optional member named same-party may"
> If a legal entity responsible for the orgin-server making such declarations 
> of additional domains in the <code>same-party</code> field is responsible 
> for the correctness of the statements made about those <code>same-
> party</code> sites in the file on the origin-server as if it would be a 
> representation about the origin-server itself. 
> I encourage all to look at 
> Where P3P 1.1 solved the same issue.
> Best, 
> Rigo

Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 11:16:02 UTC