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

Re: Plan moving forward V02

From: Dobbs, Brooks <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:50:05 +0000
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE9D39E9.10DAEB%brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
Matthias,

I think there is a logical breakdown here.

If, as you say, "the TPE not meant to be independent of the compliance spec", then, in keeping with that sentiment, no definitions need to be ported.  It is only where the TPE is to have independent meaning that the definitions need to be ported.  Certainly one of the scenarios under which it would need independent meaning would be as a communications basis for other compliance protocols, but if this is still up for debate, and the prevailing assumption is that the TPE cannot be independent of the compliance doc, then anything you pull from the compliance doc to the TPE would be arbitrary.

If the TPE needs to be able to stand on its own, we agree that more work needs to be done.  If the TPE and the Compliance Doc can only exist as a package, then why would we move elements we had previously determined to be compliance related into the TPE?

-Brooks
--

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com

[cid:5EF09571-6C29-4CF2-8D8D-0ABC488B4548]

This email  including attachments  may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender immediately and delete the message.

From: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>>
Date: Monday, November 4, 2013 4:16 AM
To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Plan moving forward V02
Resent-From: <public-tracking-announce@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking-announce@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Monday, November 4, 2013 4:17 AM

Hi Team,


Based on the feedback received, we have updated and clarified the plan how to continue.

Questions/feedback are welcome.


Regards,
matthias


The Chairs and W3C have listened to your feedback, and based on the poll results and the information we received during the October 16 and 30 calls, we have revised the Plan to finalize the TWPG deliverables as follows:

The plan of record is option 3 of the poll: We will first bring TPE to last call and then continue our compliance work.

We have prioritized getting the TPE out fto last call first to enable implementation and testing.  We will work through and close out all remaining TPE issues in the coming weeks' calls.  We will also port over from the Compliance specification all  definitions that are important for defining the meaning of the TPE protocols (including but not limited to parties, first parties, third parties, network transaction, collect/retain/use/share, user, user agent, and a definition of tracking (of what the signal is intended to indicate)). The goal is to make the TPE specification self-contained such that the TPE can be understood on its own and no dependencies on the compliance spec remain.  To minimize our work, if a definition is required for both documents, we will define it in the TPE once and for both documents.   If there are other Compliance issues that the group believes we need to close out because of dependencies or other reasons, we may prioritize those as well.

Once we have finalized the TPE specification. we will resume working on a compliance specification.  We will then proceed to close out the remaining issues against that document.  W3C believes that web users need a unified compliance standard, so that there can be one consistent expectation for how DNT signals will be treated.  However, one of the open issues that we will consider for TPE is whether to include a field that would allow a server to indicate an alternative compliance regime.  We will resolve that issue based on the consensus of the working group.

Note that our plan is to finish TPE _and_ compliance.  We have chosen option 3 and not option 4. I.e., the TPE is not meant to be independent of the compliance spec. Instead,  the TPE is built to lay the ground and later seamlessly integrate with the emerging compliance spec.

We will be seeking consensus and closing out issues under the timing and structure previously described by the plan.


Justin, Carl, and Matthias




image[204].png
(image/png attachment: image_204_.png)

Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 16:49:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:20 UTC