<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>642</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2004-03-30 13:29:41 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>Remove 4.7 and correct 6.4</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2004-04-20 15:01:09 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>P3P</product>
          <component>Compact policies</component>
          <version>unspecified</version>
          <rep_platform>Other</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>other</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>P3</priority>
          <bug_severity>minor</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>P3P1.1</target_milestone>
          
          <blocked>215</blocked>
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Rigo Wenning">rigo</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Rigo Wenning">rigo</assigned_to>
          
          
          

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1620</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="Rigo Wenning">rigo</who>
    <bug_when>2004-03-30 13:29:41 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>4.7 is entirely repeated as the first paragraph of section 6.4, so I 
think we could drop 4.7.

(Rigo, here is one typo in 6.4 - a ] that should be removed.)

At the time we wrote this we agreed to SHOULD NOT. However, I think 
MUST NOT may be appropriate given our other changes. So I would propose 
that the first paragraph of 6.4 say:

P3P user agents MUST NOT rely on P3P compact policies that do not 
comply with the P3P 1.0 or P3P 1.1 specifications or are obviously 
erroneous. Such compact policies SHOULD be deemed invalid and the 
corresponding cookies should be treated as if they had no compact 
policies. The following guidelines are designed to reduce the chance 
that a P3P user agent will accept an invalid compact policy.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1621</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Rigo Wenning">rigo</who>
    <bug_when>2004-03-30 13:30:27 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/A24ADF42-826E-11D8-8624-000A95DA3F5A@cs.
cmu.edu</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1732</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="Rigo Wenning">rigo</who>
    <bug_when>2004-04-20 10:41:45 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>4.7 removed and 6.4 changed accordingly for Draft 
WD-P3P-20040420</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>