F2F: Open Issues for the TPE Discussion on Tuesday

Hi Team,

I re-scanned the open issues on the TPE and had a look at Roy's TPE diff:
         http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2

We have made substantial progress since our last Working Draft and
we have addressed almost all open issues wrt the TPE!

Enclosed are the open issues that I would like to discuss during our F2F.
As indicated earlier, I had a conflict and can only participate remotely.
Thanks to David Singer who will help me moderating these sessions.


---------------------------------  SESSION 09.00-10.30 
-------------------------

For the first session on TPE, I have two goals:
- Quick Summary of Major changes since our last WD
- Discuss the preference collection, transmission,
    and acceptance/disregarding of preferences:
     ISSUE-194: How should we ensure consent of users for DNT inputs?
     ISSUE-161 Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance 
or rejecting DNT?

I believe that these two issues are intertwined: We can either try to 
find minimal common ground
where we all believe that a defined way of preference collection is 
acceptable (and must
not usually be disregarded), or else we allow flexibility wrt preference 
collection and management
and allow sites to disregard certain signals (in a transparent way) that 
they deem unacceptable.

OPTION A: A first proposal along the first line is to keep the current 
spec that requires that preferences
      must be expressed by actual users (while not saying how exactly; 
and then mandate that sites accept this preferences).

OPTION B: A second proposal along the first line (as suggested by the 
DAA) is to constrain the preference setting
    to be part of the browser settings (and then mandate that sites 
accept this preferences).

OPTION C: A third proposal with enhanced flexibility (as discussed on 
the list) is to provide qualifiers to the preference
    (even a "vendor preference" qualifier may be considered) and then 
allow sites to choose and disregard some of those
    preferences.

Note that technically, we need to introduce a new signal for Options 
A+B, too, to distinguish existing non-compliant
user agents that sent DNT;1 from newly designed and compliant user 
agents that need to be distinghuisable
(sending DNT;8, DNT;1+, .... or anything else that is different from DNT;1).


-------------------------- SESSION 11.00-12.30-----------------------------

The second session on Tuesday, I would like to:
- Provide a quick walkthrough on the ISSUES that are "pending review" to
   understand whether the team has any concerns that are not addressed 
by the current WD:

ISSUE-112    How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions?
ISSUE-137    Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between 
first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s)
ISSUE-152    User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-band consent
ISSUE-153    What are the implications on software that changes requests 
but does not necessarily initiate them?
ISSUE-161    Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance 
or rejecting DNT?
ISSUE-167    Multiple site exceptions
ISSUE-195    Flows and signals for handling out of band consent


I am confident that we can resolve these remaining issues and that we 
can then soon contribute to a set of standards that can be published as 
a final call.


Regards,
  matthias

Received on Sunday, 5 May 2013 09:36:32 UTC