ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that describes the DNT practices of the server?

Should the response from the server indicate a policy that describes the DNT practices of the server?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)

Raised by:

Opened on:

2011-09-21

Description:

Either by means of a header with URI pointing to the policy (Old version of ISSUE-47) or by means of a well-known URL (ISSUE-80; now closed and superseded by this issue)

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from chris.mejia@iab.net on 2013-11-01)
2. Re: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from singer@apple.com on 2013-11-01)
3. Re: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from chris.mejia@iab.net on 2013-10-30)
4. RE: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2013-10-30)
5. Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2013-10-30)
6. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com on 2012-08-27)
7. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from tisrael@cippic.ca on 2012-08-25)
8. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-25)
9. SUMMARY: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-25)
10. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-24)
11. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from vigoel@adobe.com on 2012-08-23)
12. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from gelman@blurryedge.com on 2012-08-23)
13. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-23)
14. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from vigoel@adobe.com on 2012-08-23)
15. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from tisrael@cippic.ca on 2012-08-20)
16. RE: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-08-20)
17. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-20)
18. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from david@networkadvertising.org on 2012-08-19)
19. Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from haakonfb@opera.com on 2012-08-17)
20. RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-15)
21. Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-07)
22. Re: Agenda for July 18, 2012 DNT WG Call on TPE (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-07-18)
23. Issues mentioned in the TPE document, or non-closed in the database and applying to TPE (from singer@apple.com on 2012-04-10)
24. Tracking Status Hybrid (from tom@mozilla.com on 2012-04-05)
25. RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-05)
26. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-05)
27. RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-05)
28. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-05)
29. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-05)
30. Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-02-22)
31. Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-13)
32. ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-11)
33. Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from ktrilli@truste.com on 2012-02-08)
34. Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-02-05)
35. Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-02-05)
36. ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from tom@mozilla.com on 2012-02-03)
37. diff of TPE editing since the FPWD (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-01-10)
38. RE: Proposed Agenda for 2011-11-30 TPWG call (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-11-30)
39. RE: Proposed Agenda for 2011-11-30 TPWG call (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-11-30)
40. Proposed Agenda for 2011-11-30 TPWG call (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-11-30)
41. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-28)
42. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-28)
43. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from ronansan@gmail.com on 2011-10-28)
44. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-10-28)
45. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from ronansan@gmail.com on 2011-10-27)
46. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-27)
47. RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-10-27)
48. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-27)
49. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-27)
50. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-10-26)
51. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-26)
52. Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-21)
53. Re: Agenda for 2011-10-12 DNT Workgroup Meeting (from npdoty@w3.org on 2011-10-13)
54. Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-13)
55. Re: Agenda for 2011-10-12 DNT Workgroup Meeting (from nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de on 2011-10-11)
56. Agenda for 2011-10-12 DNT Workgroup Meeting (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-11)
57. Re: Agenda for 2011-10-05 TPWG call (from npdoty@w3.org on 2011-10-09)
58. Agenda for 2011-10-04 TPWG call (from aleecia@aleecia.com on 2011-10-04)
59. Response Headers [ISSUE-47,ISSUE-48,ISSUE-51,ISSUE-76,ISSUE-79,ISSUE-80,ISSUE-81,ISSUE-87] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-04)
60. ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server point to a URI of a policy (or an existing protocol) rather than a single bit in the protocol? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-09-21)

Related notes:

Display change log