RE: Call for proposals for ISSUE-194

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.

Bryan Sullivan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [] 
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:58 AM
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.


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