ISSUE-174: How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less?
How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Compliance Next
- Raised by:
- Opened on:
- 2012-10-04
- Description:
- Related Actions Items:
- ACTION-190 on Ian Fette to Write up proposal for allowed uses for protocol data in the first N weeks - due 2012-05-02, pending review
- ACTION-266 on Ian Fette to Suggest retention related to a timed grace period (with dwainberg) - due 2012-10-10, pending review
- Related emails:
- issue and action cleanup proposals (from npdoty@w3.org on 2013-05-15)
- Re: Agenda for 16 October 2012 call (from tlr@w3.org on 2012-10-17)
- Re: Agenda for 16 October 2012 call (from bszoka@techfreedom.org on 2012-10-17)
- Re: Agenda for 16 October 2012 call (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-10-16)
- Agenda for 16 October 2012 call (from aleecia@aleecia.com on 2012-10-16)
- Agenda for 16 October 2012 call (from aleecia@aleecia.com on 2012-10-16)
- ISSUE-174: How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-04)
Related notes:
[rigo]: Ian and Roy were working on this. This is a candidate for closure if nobody works on it soon.
17 Oct 2012, 17:01:17From the October 16th call, we are looking for people who are willing to take action items here, but would otherwise close this. We will follow up with Ian and Matthias.
Nick Doty, 17 Oct 2012, 17:01:47Looks like an almost-duplicate of ISSUE-142.
Thomas Roessler, 10 Nov 2012, 17:46:08During issue cleanup, merged (with another duplicate) into ISSUE-134: Would we additionally permit logs that are retained for a short enough period?
Nick Doty, 29 May 2013, 02:18:40Display change log
