RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20]

Hi Team,


in preparation for tomorrow's TPE call, I started assessing the status 
of our TPE-related ISSUES:

I'd like to thank Roy and David for preparing the next major revision of 
the TPE spec! They have performed a huge push towards implementing all 
our prior discussions and draft agreements as updates to the TPE spec. 
As a consequence, many of our informal agreements are now documented in 
the text and we have the opportunity to make a large leap towards 
closing the remaining TPE issues.

Enclosed is a list of issues that I believe satisfy the following criteria:
    - Have been discussed before
    - Proposed text is in TPE spec
    - I believe that all participants can live with the current text

I would like to double-check that my perception is correct and then 
close these issues.

PLEASE:
- Double check that you can live with the proposed resolution and the 
current corresponding text in the TPE
- Send any comments and clarifying questions to the mailing list
- Send a note if you cannot live with one of the proposed resolutions to 
the chairs and editors at:
team-tracking-editors@w3.org [In this case, some of the issues will be 
discussed further]

DEADLINE: August 20
- If I do not get further input on any of the issues below, I plan to 
close them by August 20


Regards,
matthias

-----------------------------------------8>--- ISSUES to be closed + 
proposed Resolutions ---------------------

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/47
ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that 
describes the DNT practices of the server?
RESOLUTION:
- A policy attribute at the well-known URI may point to a site-wide 
policy (Section 5.4.1)
- The response header may identify a more specific policy at a different 
URL (Section 5.3.2)

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
RESOLUTION:
- "partners" attribute at the well-known URI identifies partner sites 
(Section 5.4.1)

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/84
ISSUE-84: Make DNT status available to JavaScript
RESOLUTION:
- Revised text in section 4.3.3

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107
ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header?
RESOLUTION:
- Revised response header values in Section 5.2 and syntax in 5.3

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? 
<http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112>
RESOLUTION:
- Exceptions are granted for fully qualified domain names (Section 6.3.1)

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124
How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent (headers, 
URIs, ...)? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124>
RESOLUTION:
- Well-known URI + Headers where the essential information needs to be 
provided with one of the mechanisms

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128
ISSUE-128: HTTP error status code to signal that tracking is required? 
<http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128>
RESOLUTION:
- "409" ;-)

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130
ISSUE-130: User-granted Exceptions b) Web-wide Exception for Third 
Parties (thisthirdparty, anywhere) 
<http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130>
RESOLUTION:
- We agreed that web-wide exceptions shall be possible. Text in Section 6.5

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155
ISSUE-155: Remove the received member from tracking status 
<http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155>
RESOLUTION:
- Removed attribute has been removed
   since we assume reliable communication