W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Batch closing of TPE issues (Deadline: December 03)

From: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr <jack@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:11:16 -0500
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0E74D0EB-0828-4BC5-9EA1-CFB4BC894F5D@networkadvertising.org>
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>

In looking at Issue-197 and the associated Action-419, it is unclear to me which changes will be made to the TPE in closing Issue-197.

Can you elaborate?

Best regards,


Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org

On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
> while we are working on the new issues, I suggest we close the set of TPE-related issues that have been PENDING REVIEW for many months. These document the outcome of our former discussions on TPE where we reached a conclusion that resulted in text. For each of those issues, the text resolving the issue is already included into the TPE spec (and has been there for a long time).
> Please: Validate that you can live with the resolution of the enclosed issues (Deadline: December 03).
> In case you want to object to closing an issue, please provide the required documentation (see "the plan"), i.e., roughly you should say why the issue cannot be closed, what concern you have that is not addressed, and what alternative text you proposed to mitigate your concern.
> Thanks a lot!
> matthias
> --------------8<------------------
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
> ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s)
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
> ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161
> ISSUE-161: Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164
> ISSUE-164: To what extent should the "same-party" attribute of tracking status resource be required
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/168
> ISSUE-168: What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that they are taking advantage of a transferred exception?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195
> ISSUE-195: Flows and signals for handling "potential" out of band consent
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/197
> ISSUE-197: How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received?

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 15:11:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:03 UTC