W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2014

RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:44:06 +0100
To: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: TOUBIANA Vincent <vtoubiana@cnil.fr>, Tracking Protection Working Group <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <94bde97fb0c2f4b045f3b3b508985619@xs4all.nl>
 From what I understand, the URL is an optional field in Bid Requests in 
most RTB-protocols. In my view RTB-protocols should innovate to adapt to 
DNT, not the other way around.
Rob

Shane M Wiley schreef op 2014-10-24 00:33:
> Vincent,
> 
> Some bidders may only be contextually targeting information (not
> cross-site or "different context") and will need to the URL to
> determine content on the page.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> FROM: TOUBIANA Vincent [mailto:vtoubiana@cnil.fr]
>  SENT: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:26 PM
>  TO: Shane M Wiley; Tracking Protection Working Group
>  SUBJECT: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
> Shane,
> 
>  My idea was to keep it as a one step process where the bid request
> would only contain the UID and only the win notice would contain the
> URL. I still don't understand how the ADX can broadcast (URL,UDI) in
> the bid request without violating the "Third party compliance"
> requirement to not share data
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#third-party-compliance
> [1]). Sending only the UID could solve this problem.
> 
>  That being said, a two step process would actually work very well.
> Especially, if UGE status are directly reported in the "matching
> tables" hosted by the ad-exchange; in that case the "additional step"
> would have no impact at all on the transaction latency.
> 
>  Vincent
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Shane M Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
>  Sent: Thu 10/23/2014 8:23 PM
>  To: TOUBIANA Vincent; Tracking Protection Working Group
>  Subject: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
>  Vincent,
> 
>  The Bid occurs in a single pass so all relevant information is passed
> as part of the "offer to bid" transaction (URL, UID) the bidder would
> then check their UGE records for that particular UID to then determine
> if leveraging profile information would be possible in this
> transaction. Attempting to make this a "two-step" process would slow
> down the transaction too much in a world where Ad Exchanges already
> struggle to meet SLAs with a single call structure.
> 
>  - Shane
> 
>  From: TOUBIANA Vincent [mailto:vtoubiana@cnil.fr]
>  Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:29 AM
>  To: Shane M Wiley; Tracking Protection Working Group
>  Subject: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
>  Shane,
> 
>  I have a clarifying question. In the precise case of RTB, when DNT is
> set, is it possible to only include in the Bid Request information
> about the user (i.e. the user id) but not about the current network
> transaction (i.e. no information related to the visited website)? That
> would allow website to check that they have a UGE before bidding,
> information about the visited website would then be only transmitted
> to the winning bidder.
> 
>  This option would still allow RTB to take place while preventing
> information about a network transaction to be shared with third
> parties.
> 
>  Vincent
> 
>  De : Shane M Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
>  Envoyé : mercredi 15 octobre 2014 17:33
>  À : 'Tracking Protection Working Group'
>  Objet : Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
>  TPWG,
> 
>  I was asked to develop language for consideration of how to manage
> DNT signals within Real-Time Bidding (RTB) environments such as an Ad
> Exchange. I've up-leveled the concept to "Indirect DNT Processing" to
> cover scenarios where a user's signal may move from a direct client
> interaction to one between servers (server-to-server).
> 
>  [Normative]
>  For Servers in direct communication with the User Agent that then
> communicate further with other parties within the same transaction but
> outside direct communication with the User Agent, those Servers MUST
> convey the current DNT flag relayed to their domain to those other
> parties. In cases where other parties have recent knowledge of their
> own domain's DNT flag or UGE MAY process the request leveraging that
> information but MUST respond appropriately in the status response that
> they have done so - which, in turn, MUST then be conveyed by the
> Server to the User Agent.
> 
>  [Non-Normative]
>  This is intended to facilitate indirect communications through a
> transitive passing of permission to allow for DNT processing to occur
> even when a processor doesn't have direct access to the User Agent. If
> the processor has direct information about their own domain's DNT
> setting with the User Agent, such as their last direct interaction
> with the User Agent, they may want to consider this in their
> transaction handling.
> 
>  Question - While from a policy perspective the passage of the STATUS
> RESPONSE value makes sense I'm not sure if this works as cleanly with
> the current TPE handling of those statuses. Should we add a new
> flag/field to state a response is being conveyed from another party as
> to not confuse the User Agent into thinking the response is coming
> from the server in which it is in direct communication?
> 
>  - Shane
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#third-party-compliance
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 13:44:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:24 UTC