Re: Change proposal Issue-201

Nick, you are correct. Issue is against the TPE.

Maybe paragraph 5.1 TPE (Communicating a Tracking Status | Overview) is a good placeholder.

Rob


Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:

>Hi Rob,
>
>As I understand it, this text is intended for the Tracking Preference
>Expression document, along with ISSUE-201. We haven't been tracking TPE
>issues with change proposals, at least for now.
>
>To interpret this proposal, can you clarify where in the document these
>new paragraphs would be added? I had thought we already included at
>least some of these requirements.
>
>Thanks,
>Nick
>
>On Jun 24, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> Dear group,
>> 
>> hereby my text proposal for issue-201. It is also open for
>discussion.
>> 
>> Nick could you please add it to the change list for the June Draft?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Rob 
>> 
>> Text proposal: 
>> <text> 
>> In general, OOBC trumps UGE. 
>> 
>> OOBC: 
>> When a party relies on OOBC, it MUST use the tracking status value
>"C" and a well as a provide a well known resource/control link to
>easily revoke consent. A user agent MAY change the DNT expression to
>DNT:0 for that network interaction. 
>> 
>> UGE: 
>> When a party relies on UGE, and a user grants a UGE, the user agent
>MUST change the DNT expression to DNT:0 for that network interaction.
>The user agent MUST provide easy access to the list of UGEs as well as
>provide a means to easily revoke an individual UGE or all UGEs. 
>> </text>