Re: TPE Editorial Proposal to Remove Another Hard Dependency on the Compliance Specification

Hi Jack,


thanks for the proposed change.

------
Two general remarks/clarifications before we can discuss your proposal:

(A) The TPE defines the term tracking and this term is used to define 
the DNT signal, i.e.,
there is no permitted way to use the TPE protocol and then "redefine" 
the meaning of DNT;1.
I.e., when a user agent sends "DNT;1", this signals that a user prefers 
not to be tracked and the meaning of this "not to be tracked" is defined 
as "not Tracking" where the term tracking is defined in the TPE.

However, the compliance regime will specify how sites respond and also 
the meaning of these responses. On the sites expressing themselves, we 
did not put any constraints yet (besides some syntax framework). I.e., 
if a site has a conflicting definition of tracking, this does not change 
the meaning of the DNT;1 signal.

(B) If a site posts a link to a compliance regime at the well-known 
resource, then this indicates that a site follows this compliance regime 
and adheres to it.

--------------

Given this background, I did not understand the purpose of your proposed 
"R" flag.

If the flag "R" indicates that the compliance practices are described in 
the compliance-URL, then the "R" flag is redundant since this is clear 
from the spec.
As a consequence, I do not see a need for it. The mere presence of the 
URL signals that these are the practices that a site follows.

Feel free to clarify in what technical scenario this flag is needed and 
how it would be processed by a user agent (and/or change its behavior).


Regards,
matthias




Am 27.02.2014 23:14, schrieb Jack L. Hobaugh Jr:
> Dear Co-Chairs:
>
> On December 8, 2013, Roy Fielding notified the TPWG that:
> Over the past three weeks I have made a number of changes to the TPE
> editors' draft in order to remove the hard dependency on the Compliance
> specification and note the currently pending WG decisions.
> . . . .
> This reflects a first pass on revising TPE toward the new plan.
> Most of the changes are simply editorial rephrasing to avoid an
> indication of compliance.  The non-editorial changes are summarized
> below. Note that these changes represent a set of proposals by the
> editor and are subject to the usual disclaimers regarding not yet
> being WG consensus.
> . . . .
> 5.2.*
>      -- removed "1" and "3" tracking status values since they imply
>         compliance; they can still be sent as qualifiers.
>      -- added   "T" TSV (tracking) as replacement for 1/3
>      -- changed "!" TSV from non-compliant to under construction
>      -- changed "X" TSV (dynamic) to "?" to be more self-descriptive
> (Found at 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0044.html)
>
> Mr. Fielding also introduced Issue-239 and the TPWG has reached 
> consensus on that issue.  Issue-239 permits a server to provide a link 
> to a compliance regime or policy.
>
> I agree with Roy that the hard dependency on the Compliance 
> specification should be removed from the TPE and that a server should 
> have the ability to point to the compliance regime being followed by 
> that server.
>
> Towards that goal, I now propose adding the following TSV value in 
> order to remove a hard dependency on the Compliance Specification:
>
> — “R” TSV (reference)
>
> “R” (reference) notifies the user to refer to the “compliance” field 
> to understand how a DNT:1 signal will be treated by the server.
>
> For example:
>
> {
>
>             “tracking”: “R”,
>
>             “compliance”: 
> [“https://www.companyX.com/NonW3CCompliancePolicy”] 
> <https://www.companyx.com/NonW3CCompliancePolicy%E2%80%9D]>,
>
>             . . .
>
> }
>
>
> Again, the rationale for this proposal is remove a hard dependency on 
> the Compliance specification.   Specifically, for those entities that 
> adopt a non-W3C compliance regime that may have a conflicting 
> definition of “tracking,” this addition may allow those entities to 
> also adopt the W3C TPE protocol specification.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jack
>
> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> *Network Advertising Initiative| Counsel & Senior Director of Technology
> 1620 Eye St. NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341| jack@networkadvertising.org 
> <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended 
> for the named recipient(s) only. However, it is not intended as legal 
> advice nor should you consider it as such. You should contact a lawyer 
> for any legal advice. If you are not an intended recipient of this 
> email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in 
> reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately.
>
>
>
>