Re: ISSUE-60: proposed to close

Since this issue is about HOW a party knows whether it's a 1p or a 3p, and
we're also fine with these approaches to the edge cases, I agree that we
can close ISSUE 60.


On 11 April 2012 11:40, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> We’re unable to accept this draft.  L****
>
> ** **
>
> I’d rather we leverage the text that Jonathan and I originally used to
> highlight that a 3rd party should be able to identify its activities as a
> 3rd party in most situations.  There are edge cases where content can be
> re-hosted outside of 1st party knowledge (iFraming, Mashable, etc.) thus
> making it 3rd party but we agreed to not attempt to cripple legitimate 1stparty practices for these outcomes.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I further offered non-normative text on methods for 3rd parties to know
> they are 3rd parties in most cases (known 3rd party vs. accidental 3rdparty).
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> - Shane****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Peter Eckersley [mailto:peter.eckersley@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:23 PM
> *To:* Tracking Protection Working Group WG
> *Subject:* ISSUE-60: proposed to close****
>
> ** **
>
> Issue 60 raises the question of whether a recipient of a DNT: 1 header
> knows whether it is in fact a first or a third party.  This can in some
> instances be ambiguous: for instance a host of an image may not be able to
> tell the difference between users who follow a hyperlink to that image (in
> which case they host is a 1st party) and users who are seeing the image
> randomly embedded on some other page (in which case the host is arguably a
> 3rd party)
>
> The text that Tom, Jonathan and I drafted resolves this with the following
> language:
>
> ****
>
> A "first party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that can
> infer with high
> probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with
> it. Otherwise, a
> party is a third party.
>
> A "third party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that
> cannot infer with high
> probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with it.
> ****
>
>
> If the authors of other drafts are willing to accept our "high
> probability" standard for resolving this issue, it can be closed.
>
> --
> Peter****
>



-- 
Peter