- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 17:07:35 +0000
- To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Repeating my earlier drum-beat, "reliably 'sound' user preferences" depends upon your definition of 'sound'. I do not consider a browser UI or install process to be the only 'sound' way of assessing and serving user preferences. Overtly restricting DNT to that, and forbidding all other means as a way to protect that tenuous strategy, will only serve to hinder innovation and limit the usability of DNT. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:58 AM To: public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Re: Call for proposals for ISSUE-194 Hi Team, thanks for your input! One challenge that I heard is to distinguish legacy signals (tools spraying DNT;1) from newly designed user agents that comply with our spec. My understanding of the proposal by Rob: - Use authentication to ensure valid transmission of signals - Replace unauthenticated signals by DNT1 Another proposal was to introduce a new flag/value to distinguish legacy signals from signals from newly designed user agents: - DNT;1 - Legacy signals - DNT;1i - User preference collected at install-time - DNT;1p - User preference entered by the user as part of the run-time preference settings - DNT;0 - Permission to track (by preference or exception) Note that for all approaches, there is always the User agent string that gives some indication of the user agent sending the requests. I am still eager to hear more proposals. Overall, the goal to reliably identify "sound" user preferences is a common objective of this group. IMHO we just have not found the best approach to achieve this goal. Further comments, clarifications, and inputs are appreciated. I would also like to discuss this topic at our F2F next week. Regards, matthias On 30/04/2013 09:38, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote: > > Hi Team, > > > > during the last TPE call, we discussed ISSUE-194. One goal of > ISSUE-194 is to ensure that sites reliably receive valid DNT signals. > Without such a mechanism, there is a risk that a multitude of things > spray DNT;1 signals (antivirus, network devices, operating systems, > ...; often without user interaction). > As a consequence, sites can no longer reasonably by required to listen > to those signals. > > We agreed that separating noise from signals is a valid concern and > there were concerns > whether there exists any solution that satisfies our goals. > > If we could reliably distinguish between valid user preferences/choice > and noise from other entities on the net, > then this allows sites to actually reliably act on user preferences > while "D"isregarding the noise. > > As part of discussing this further, I would like to issue a call for > proposals. The question is > what mechanisms are envisioned that allow sites to (more) reliably > separate noise from preferences. > > Any proposals (as responses) are welcome. My goal is to then discuss > and compare thes proposals > to understand whether they help sites with this concern. > > > Regards, > matthias > >
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 17:08:26 UTC