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

Re: Plan moving forward

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:52:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8e1OiStiJD89DyA1Oy+T6k7hKB7xbpbojRK=bJFRino1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "public-tracking-announce@w3.org" <public-tracking-announce@w3.org>
I would have expected a fast path on TPE would drop most of the contentious
(and frankly not clearly useful) parts like the status bits around parties,
and focus on just enabling a basic expression of user intent and some sort
of response from the server. I'm still having trouble imagining a browser
using all of the response codes defined in 5.2, and when divorced from the
requirements they're frankly rather meaningless. I think these things crept
in over the scope of years but were not in the initial vision for DNT and
it's not clear that any of them will be used, other than making
implementations on both end unnecessarily complex.


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Alan Chapell <
achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:

> Hi Carl,
>
> Can you please walk me through how we got from working on the TPE + a
> definition of tracking to where we are today?
>
> By porting over most of the definitions from the compliance document, it
> would seem that the chairs are moving the group significantly closer to
> option 1 or option 2 from the poll. Given that options 1 & 2 were rejected
> by the working group, I'm curious as to why this is the approach the chairs
> are choosing?
>
> Alan
>
>
> From: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>
> Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:35 PM
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <
> public-tracking@w3.org>, "public-tracking-announce@w3.org" <
> public-tracking-announce@w3.org>
> Subject: Plan moving forward
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:35:58 +0000
>
>
> All -
>
> The basis of the discussion of Item 3 on the agenda for 30 October.
>
> =====
>
> The Chairs and W3C have listened to your feedback, and based on the poll
> results and the information we received during the October 16 call, we are
> revising the Plan to finalize the TWPG deliverables as follows:
>
> Based on the feedback received, the chairs propose to prioritize getting
> the TPE out to last call for 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 many of the
> definitions, including parties, first parties, third parties, network
> transaction, collect/retain/use/share, user, user agent, and service
> provider.  The TPE will also include a definition of tracking --- of what
> the signal is intended to indicate --- unless the group decides that such a
> definition is not necessary.  (The definitions of de-identified and
> graduated response pertain exclusively to compliance issues, and probably
> do not need to be ported over, however the working group members will
> ultimately decide which definitions are necessary for TPE to progress.)  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.  By my calculation, there are approximately 10 open or raised issues
> against a slightly expanded TPE, and 7 issues in pending review.  It is my
> hope that we can cycle through these issues in 14 calls (or less), which
> would have us wrapping up in February.
>
> 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.
>
> We will be seeking consensus and closing out issues under the timing and
> structure previously described by Matthias.  On the call Wednesday, if we
> are unable to come to agreement on Issues 5 and 10, we will proceed to a
> Call for Objections on those two issues, and working group members will
> have two weeks to register their objections to the options.  The Chairs
> will then choose among the options based on which options have the least
> strong objections.
>
> We will take some time during the call to answer any questions you have,
> or feel free to send questions to the mailing list.  After Wednesday's
> call, we will shift to the new plan and in parallel schedule a meeting to
> get advice and ensure alignment with the W3C Director.
>
> Justin, Carl, and Matthias
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 20:52:27 UTC

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