W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2017

RE: Issues for Monday Call

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:58:30 +0000
To: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>, public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0102015ba0af88ae-28126a17-9666-47e4-8193-11f2adb2590c-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
Dear tpwg,


> 30min: 1. to tackle the question "what extra field and qualifiers do we
> need",
> we now focus on the final open new usecase which is online ad auctions.
> Rob will present his proposal.

To make our discussion clearer, I would like to use the attached screenshots of the RTB network of Rubicon and the interconnected role of Krux.

Note: the results of the analysis were peer-reviewed in the Dagstuhl seminar on 'Online Privacy and Web Transparency'. The full slide deck can be found on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954946

Regards,

Rob


-----Original message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
Sent: Thursday, April 20 2017, 9:23 am
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Issues for Monday Call


Hi Folks,

this is our final call for resolving issues for the next CR.
After this call, we focus on introducing any edits corresponding to the
resolved issues and then publish our CR end of May.

30min: 1. to tackle the question "what extra field and qualifiers do we
need",
we now focus on the final open new usecase which is online ad auctions.
Rob will present his proposal.

20min: 2. We then look at the remaining high-priority issue:
  https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/13

10min: 3. Then at the other lower priority issues

Our list of issues is at:
  https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/
Note that issues that are not resolved by end of April will be
auto-pushed out to potential future releases.


Regards,
matthias

-----
DISCUSSIONS FOR MONDAY

1. Issue triage: Are there issues that are high priority and must be
resolved in April? If not, we can process without change.

2. What additional fields are desired for simplifying compliance in the EU?

Note: So far I have not seen any submitted proposals for an additional
concrete field on the list. If I receive none, IMHO we can close this
discussion on monday.

2. Best way to communicate "consent context".
Our current approach was that the TSR serves two roles:
	A. Discovery (before visiting site) of essential tracking
		information
	B. Sufficient context to give clear meaning to
		user-granted exception. This role triggered that we
		plan to require TSR if the exception API is used.
		It also fuels our discussion "what extra fields are
		needed"
Roy suggested that TSR may be the best place for (B). Let us see whether

we find a better place for the consent-context information.
One suggestion was that it should be part of the API call.

3. Asyncronous API / Update Events (Continued)
https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/13

4. Anything else we want to discuss







SSRN_2954946_-_Rubicon_Referer_Subgraph.PNG
(image/png attachment: SSRN_2954946_-_Rubicon_Referer_Subgraph.PNG)

SSRN_2954946_-_Krux_Referer_Subgraph.PNG
(image/png attachment: SSRN_2954946_-_Krux_Referer_Subgraph.PNG)

Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 15:59:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:34 UTC