Re: Call for proposals for ISSUE-194

Hi Brian,


thanks for the input! I agree with your concern that over-constraining 
the freedom should be avoided.
One idea I currently have in my mind is that preferences come along with 
indications how they were collected (since input is important to some 
sites).
The sites can then (within reasonable bounds) decide whether the 
"quality of preference" is sufficient for them.


Matthias
On 03/05/2013 19:07, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> 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 Saturday, 4 May 2013 16:13:05 UTC