Possibly closing ISSUE-197 without a call for objections

Based on today's call and subsequent discussion with David Wainberg, I'm not sure we need to go to CfO on this one.  No one expressed any objections on the call today, and David Wainberg has responded that he's OK with the proposed revision.  Here is what David Singer has proposed (CAPS language is new):

A tracking status value of D means that the origin server is unable or unwilling to respect a tracking preference received from the requesting user agent. An origin server that sends this tracking status value must detail within the server's corresponding privacy policy the conditions under which a tracking preference might be disregarded.
For example, an origin server might disregard the DNT field received from specific user agents (or via specific network intermediaries) that are deemed to be non-conforming, might be collecting additional data from specific source network locations due to prior security incidents, or might be compelled to disregard certain DNT requests to comply with a local law, regulation, or order.
NOTE: THIS SPECIFICATION WAS WRITTEN ASSUMING THAT THE D TRACKING STATUS VALUE WOULD ONLY BE USED IN SITUATIONS THAT CAN BE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED TO USERS AS AN EXCEPTION TO NORMAL BEHAVIOR.  IF THIS TURNS OUT NOT TO BE THE CASE, EITHER THE LOGIC THAT IS LEADING TO THE D SIGNAL MAY NEED RE-EXAMINATION, OR THIS SPECIFICATION, OR BOTH. An origin server that responds with D in ways that are inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims regarding tracking is likely to be considered misleading.


The capitalized language replaces this sentence in the prior version: "Note that the D tracking status value in meant to be used only in situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception to normal behavior."

If you object to the revised language, let me know; otherwise, we will close the issue without a call for objections.