Re: issue-25

Mike,
   I call this improper because ETags already have a purpose and
semantics.  If I understand you correctly, we would have to use the exact
same URL, so that the browser would use the ETag value that it cached.
This means that we could no longer use "cache-busting" parameters, which
means that intermediary proxies could serve the content, which destroys
audience measurement.  I understand the desire for really complicated,
unproven, solutions, but none of the ones that I have heard so far seem
likely to work.  We have a solution that works, and is well proven.

--ronan



On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Mike O'Neill
<michael.oneill@baycloud.com>wrote:

> Hi Ronan,
>
>
>
> No, not a unique identifier, which I agree would diminish privacy and
> should be ruled out along with any other tracking identifier collection
> when DNT is 1. What I meant was a count value (number of ad impressions)
> which I assume would have limited entropy i.e. the max value would be <<
> the number of online individuals in scope. How many ad impressions would
> you need to count? I agree relying on the cache for 6 months would be a
> stretch, but do you need to do that? At some point there may be some loss
> of functionality when DNT is 1 but the setting is an important indication
> of user intent so needs to be honoured.
>
>
>
> How an ETag is generated in not specified in the HTTP spec, so in what way
> would this be “improper”?
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> .
>
>
>