RE: issue-25

Ronan,

 

Multiple counts could be easily encoded into the ETag value (or indeed a
low-entropy cookie). The point is that there is no need to communicate a
persistent user-specific value, and a little effort spent up-front can avoid
it. 

 

I cannot see anything here that needs UIDs, which are a transparent and
verifiable signal for DNT compliance,  and we should not introduce a gaping
hole in the standard for the sake of a small degree of technical effort.

 

On your other points:

 

.        Cache-Control: private is enough to stop intermediates getting in
the way.

.        People purge their cookies as well as caches. There probably is not
much difference in stickiness.

.        https/http is as the same-origin issue This would be a problem for
anything including localStorage and cookies. Use https for your tags and
embed the top level origin as a parm. (don't rely on Referer: )

.        Caching is always based on the whole URI. The clear tag URI will
contain the address of the page ( and the creative_id etc. if you want)

 

Mike

 

 

From: Ronan Heffernan [mailto:ronansan@gmail.com] 
Sent: 22 July 2013 13:56
To: rob@blaeu.com
Cc: Mike O'Neill; Tracking Protection Working Group WG
Subject: Re: issue-25

 

That is a frequency capping requirement, not an audience measurement
requirement, but audience measurement reports (counts of how many browsers
saw a creative 6 times, how many browsers saw the creative 7 times, etc.)
are used by the advertisers to verify that the frequency capping contract is
being properly fulfilled by the publishers or ad networks.

 

--ronan



On Monday, July 22, 2013, Rob van Eijk wrote:


? The ad contract is pretty specific:  7-times frequency cap on each
creative and a 14-times frequency cap on the whole (6 creative) campaign, on
a 6-month campaign

That example sounds like a set of performance indicator for individual ads
delivered to unique browsers, across sites and time.

Rob