Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

I have two questions:

Will the content of the well known url correspond with the value in the 
proposed compliance field?

The proposal looks to me like an attempt to ditch the compliance spec 
and move forward with a combo of TPE+voluntary regime. Is this a correct 
observation?

Rob

On 5-9-2012 2:51, David Wainberg wrote:
>
> The proposal is the following:
>
>   * /The compliance spec remains silent on the matter/
>   * /Add a required "compliance" field to the tracking status resource
>     in the TPE, where the value indicates the compliance regime under
>     which the server is honoring the DNT signal./
>   * /The value of the compliance field is a 3-5 letter token
>     indicating the applicable regulatory regime. Allowed tokens could
>     include 3-letter country codes, e.g. USA, GBR, NLD, or
>     designations for voluntary regimes, e.g. W3C, DAA, NAI, IABEU. My
>     understanding is that an organization like IANA can manage a list
>     of tokens in order to prevent collisions./
>