Re: Your concerns with ISSUE_197?

For the "!" I am ok with it after recent changes.

For "Disregard", first I'm not sure of the meaning or intent of the last 
para. Can someone clarify?

"/Note that the D tracking status value is meant to be used only in 
situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception to 
normal behavior. An origin server that responds with D in ways that are 
inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims regarding 
tracking is likely to be considered misleading./"

Second, I'd request we leave the issue open pending finalization of 
other aspects of the spec.

Thanks,

David

On 2013-12-04 1:53 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
> on our call today, we did not have strong supporters for keeping 
> ISSUE-197 and ISSUE-161 open.
> Since you were not present, I would like to ask you to elaborate on 
> your concerns by email to understand them better.
>
> ISSUE-197 How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is 
> received? (Matthias, Jack Hobaugh, David Wainberg)
>
> We currently require that the potential reasons for sending disregard 
> signals must be documented in the privacy policy.
>
>
> What are your concerns with this resolution?
>
>
> Regards,
> matthias