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

I'll talk to Beth about getting it reposted once I'm back in the office (tomorrow).  I'm confused though - only the DAT one wasn't moved. The Demdex one is still working. Where is that XML file located?

Vinay

Sent from my phone

On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:05 AM, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>> wrote:

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.

matthias


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 <mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>> 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