Re: Batch closing of TPE-related issues (response by April 16)

I agree with David that we do not have consensus on the noncompliance signal semantics.  Some participants want an open-ended noncompliance signal, while others would like a much narrower scope (e.g. short-term testing).

As for resolution, I'm indifferent between leaving ISSUE-161 at PENDING REVIEW or moving it to CLOSED and creating a new ISSUE for noncompliance semantics.

Jonathan


On Friday, April 12, 2013 at 8:03 AM, David Wainberg wrote:

> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On 161, the "!" signal, while we do seem to have consensus on the signal, I do not believe we have reached consensus on the precise meaning or the language describing it in the spec. Therefore, the issue should remain open.
> 
> -David
> 
> On 4/12/13 9:00 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > as part of our final cleanup in preparation of our next working draft, I suggest to close the issues listed below.
> > 
> > Please respond by April 16 if you cannot live with the proposed resolution of those issues.
> > If you do so, please include a justification and describe what concern of yours is not addressed in
> > the currently documented draft of the TPE.
> > 
> > Regards,
> >  matthias
> > 
> > --------------
> > 
> > ISSUE-112 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112) 
> > OPEN
> > How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112)
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
> > 
> > REASON:
> > - We agreed to use cookie-matching-like wildcards and rules to allow
> >   for code-reuse in user agents
> > - This is reflected in the spec
> > 
> > ISSUE-144 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144) 
> > 
> > User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests? (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
> > 
> > REASON: In the new exception model, user agents are required to communicate the status of an exception.
> >  The status may be changed by end users and no further requirements are needed. This is reflected in the spec.
> > 
> > NOTE: We still have an open issue whether user agents are required to implement the exception API.
> > 
> > ISSUE-161 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161) 
> > 
> > o we need a tracking status value for partial compliance or rejecting DNT? (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161
> > 
> > RESOLUTION: 
> > - We defined a "!" indicator that says that the site is not claiming to comply (e.g., maintenance / under construction)
> > 
> > ISSUE-185 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185)
> > WebWide Not 
> > 
> > There should not be an API for web-wide exceptions (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185
> > 
> > RESOLUTION:
> > - We reached agreement that there will be an API for web-side exceptions
> > 
> > ISSUE-143 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143)
> > Reciprocal Consent 
> > 
> > Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143
> > 
> > REASON:
> > - We will have this discussion as part of ISSUE-194.
> > 
> > 
> > 
>