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

RE: Approach to ISSUE-167: Multiple site exception

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:55:30 -0000
To: "'Matthias Schunter \(Intel Corporation\)'" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "'Shane Wiley'" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <069d01ce240a$2a3cbea0$7eb63be0$@baycloud.com>
Shane,

As I understand the use-case, getting consent for multi first-parties can be
handled by the existing API. Script in the top-level domain just calls the
API with the additional parties in arrayOfDomainStrings. I thought the
problem with multi first-parties was the DNT:1 case,  and (otherwise)
third-party servers wanted to claim first party status and so respond with
Tk: 1.

This is different from the situation where you want to simultaneously
register tracking consent to other (actual) first-parties, each perhaps with
their own retinue of third-parties, which hits the same-origin restriction.

Or have I not understood your use-case?  Can you give an example?

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] 
Sent: 18 March 2013 15:37
To: Shane Wiley; Mike O'Neill
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Approach to ISSUE-167: Multiple site exception

ISSUE-167: Multiple site exceptions
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/167


Hi Team (and in particular Shane and Mike),


I have re-read the minutes and it seems to be that the right approach
forward to ISSUE-167 (albeit not perfect) is to leave the API as it is for
final call and then understand the implementation experiences.

We can then design a backward compatible way to add MultiSiteExceptions
later.
One challenge to overcome is that we need to ensure that the envisioned
method is secure, i.e., that one can only ask for exceptions for sites that
one owns/controls.

Formally, I suggest to document this and mark ISSUE-167 as POSTPONED. 
Are you OK with this way forward?


Regards,
matthias
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 18:56:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC