Re: ISSUE-164 (requirements on same-party attribute): Call for text alternatives (possibly until Wednesday September 26)

Hi Ed,

I believe that the call for objections can have multiple forms.
I agree that in this case, if we get text on (B) and (C), we should 
phrase both additions as mutually non-exclusive.


On 23/09/2012 13:54, Ed Felten wrote:
> Are these proposals mutually exclusive, or might it be possible (say) 
> to adopt C along with either A or B?
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Matthias Schunter 
> < <>> wrote:
>     Hi Team,
>     triggered by last weeks call, I created ISSUE-146 that allows us to
>     discuss to what extent the "same-party" attribute should be optional.
>     During the call, we discussed three options so far:
>     (A) Current draft: Resource is optional
>     (B) Alternative proposal 1: If multiple domains on a page belong
>     to the
>     same party, then this fact SHOULD be declared using the same-party
>     attribute
>     (C) Alternative proposal 2: State that user agents MAY assume that
>     additional elements that are hosted under a different URL and
>     occur on a
>     page and declare "intended for 1st party use" are malicious unless
>     this
>     URL is listed in the "same-party"  attribute
>     In order to now start our decision procedure, I need proposed text
>     changes (as specific as possible) for proposed alternatives to the
>     current text (text proposals may follow our discussions along the
>     lines
>     of (B) or (C) or propose further alternatives).
>     I would like to obtain input by Wednesday (if possible) to then start
>     the call for objections ASAP.
>     Regards,
>     matthias

Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 17:04:42 UTC