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

Re: wrong definition of tracking in TCS

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:20:43 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6E231C5C-5ED9-42E0-8B10-DBA7B0169BB9@gbiv.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
The specific change that was introduced in the June draft needs
to be reverted, which could be done in any number of ways that
do not include the status quo.  I have been told several times
that this would be done before the next WD.  It has not yet been done.

This reversion to prior WD text does not, in any way, prevent
the ISSUE-5 discussion from continuing and new text being
introduced as a result of that decision, should it ever occur.

I am trying to get us back to a point where Adobe does not need
to formally object to publication of the WD because the current
text contradicts the other sections of the Compliance specification,
the TPE spec, and all known implementations of DNGT.  I am also
interested to see if the TCS document is going to be responsive
to WG input, unlike the last WD, or if I need to make corresponding
changes to TPE in order to describe those parts of the protocol
that has already been agreed to by this working group.


On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:22 PM, John Simpson wrote:

> Seems to me that there are a number of tracking definitions on  the table as change proposals.  Are you suggesting that the WD should include all options?
> If that's the case, are suggesting that the WD list all options that are on the table?
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:07 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> Is the editor going to address this change or not?
>> ....Roy
>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> 2.9 Tracking
>>>> Tracking is the retention or use, after a network interaction is complete,
>>>> of data records that are, or can be, associated with a specific user, user
>>>> agent, or device.
>>> As mentioned in the last call for objections, my response to the last
>>> chairs' decision, and almost every teleconference since this change
>>> was introduced in the June draft, the above definition is overly
>>> broad and does not match any of our discussions during or since the
>>> initial TPWG meeting in Cambridge.  More importantly, it is inconsistent
>>> with the rest of this specification's requirements in response to the
>>> user's expressed desire of Do Not Track.
>>> I see no point in continuing this working group if we cannot immediately
>>> address ISSUE-5.  However, since that is not a short-term discussion,
>>> I propose that the definition present in the prior WD be restored.  IOW:
>>> "Tracking" is understood by this standard as the collection and
>>> retention of data across multiple parties' domains or services in
>>> a form such that it can be attributed to a specific user, user agent,
>>> or device.
>>> and that this definition rightly belongs in Section 1 (the Introduction,
>>> which is currently, incorrectly, and confusingly labeled Scope).
>>> Cheers,
>>> Roy T. Fielding                     <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
>>> Senior Principal Scientist, Adobe   <https://www.adobe.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 01:21:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC