Re: Change proposal Issue-201

Hi Rob,

As I understand it, this text is intended for the Tracking Preference Expression document, along with ISSUE-201. We haven't been tracking TPE issues with change proposals, at least for now.

To interpret this proposal, can you clarify where in the document these new paragraphs would be added? I had thought we already included at least some of these requirements.

Thanks,
Nick

On Jun 24, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

> 
> Dear group,
> 
> hereby my text proposal for issue-201. It is also open for discussion.
> 
> Nick could you please add it to the change list for the June Draft?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob 
> 
> Text proposal: 
> <text> 
> In general, OOBC trumps UGE. 
> 
> OOBC: 
> When a party relies on OOBC, it MUST use the tracking status value "C" and a well as a provide a well known resource/control link to easily revoke consent. A user agent MAY change the DNT expression to DNT:0 for that network interaction. 
> 
> UGE: 
> When a party relies on UGE, and a user grants a UGE, the user agent MUST change the DNT expression to DNT:0 for that network interaction. The user agent MUST provide easy access to the list of UGEs as well as provide a means to easily revoke an individual UGE or all UGEs. 
> </text>

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 08:23:56 UTC