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

RE : ISSUE-262: guidance regarding server responses and timing

From: TOUBIANA Vincent <vtoubiana@cnil.fr>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:10:26 +0100
Message-ID: <01A1856C4999FF4287CCB37912A708EB04E12A8B@srv-cnilexc.cnil.fr>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Cc: "Tracking Protection Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>

> I think we need to step back and consider the problem in general.
We have a server that wants to support DNT but is, in fact, relaying
the request to others.  This is a 1:N gateway.  It is not too late for
us to introduce a TSV that says "I am a 1:N gateway, here is information
about me and here is information about my requirements on downstream
recipients; I promise to relay the DNT signal to those recipients and
will relay the final recipient's Tk response to the current request."


The Ad-exchange is sharing the data with third parties and therefore does not respect the DNT signal in the first place. If an Ad-exchange plans to share data about a transaction with a set of third parties it should send a disregard response. I don't see how the "I'm a 1:N gateway" would not be interpreted as "I'm sharing data related to this transaction".

Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 20:13:34 UTC

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