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

(lifting radio silence) 

Opera Software agrees with all the proposed resolutions below. 

Thanks, 

Haakon 

On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:

> 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?
> 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, ...)?
> 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?
> 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)
> 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
> RESOLUTION:
> - Removed attribute has been removed
>   since we assume reliable communication



-- 
Haakon Flage Bratsberg
Opera Software ASA
Product Counsel, Privacy Officer