Re: Issue Maintenance

I don't believe ISSUE-95 should be CLOSED.  See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jan/0363.html.

Jonathan

On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Matthias Schunter wrote:

> Hi Team,
> 
> I did a pass over our issues and I'd like to suggest some status changes.
> 
> As always, please drop me a line if you disagree and/or want to discuss
> a proposal.
> 
> Without any responses, I will assume that my suggestions reflect
> consensus and
> will perform the suggested changes.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RAISED -> OPEN
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> I've opened the following issues:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/113
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/127
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/129
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> PENDING REVIEW -> OPEN
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124
> ISSUE-124: How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent
> (headers, URIs, ...)?
> Reason: Unless I misinterpreted the description ;-) This issue (what
> mechanisms to use for responses)
>   was reopened due to Roy's proposal.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> PENDING REVIEW -> POSTPONED
> ----------------------------------------------
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/61
>  ISSUE-61: A site could publish a list of the other domains that are
> associated with them
>  Reason: Dependency on Compliance Spec
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> PENDING REVIEW -> CLOSED
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/95
>  ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking
> preference for a user?
>  Reason: Resolution in current WD did not raise comments
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107
>  ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header?
>  Reason: Proposal in Sec 5.2 in current WD did not raise comments
>    Note 1: I perceive the discussion of the format to be closed
>      If we choose headers, we are likely to use the current proposal
>    Note 2: The discussion whether to use headers and/or URIs is still open.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/120
>  ISSUE-120: Should the response header be mandatory (MUST) or
> recommended (SHOULD)
>  Reason: "SHOULD" in current WD (5.2.1) did not raise comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
>