[WG-InfoSharing] Interesting Review of P3P

Mark Lizar - OCG m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com
Thu Mar 24 14:24:26 CDT 2016


Hi Iain/Justin, 

I think having these columns in the MVCR fields description table would do the trick:  

| Receipt Field Label | Receipt Field Format | Data Field Name | Data Type | Receipt Field Description | Purpose of Field  |

Including both the labels and data field descriptions necessary to make the receipt machine readable. 

Is there anything else needed Justin? 

- Mark 


> On 24 Mar 2016, at 17:58, Iain Henderson <iainhenderson at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> So if this (attached, minus the 1-15 numbers) is close-ish to a representation of a receipt as would be visualised to the recipient, what would we need to do from your perspective to complete a reference implementation that included machine readability?
> 
> If that is a bigger hurdle than we have the bandwidth for at this point in time, then the fall back position is that the minimal viable version of the receipt imposes no technical constraints.
> 
> The reason why I think there is some urgency around making this decision is that organisations will shortly be looking for solutions to the consent problems caused to them by the EU privacy upgrade (GDPR) that will be written into law in May. From my perspective, a minimalistic variant that we can point to and discuss is infinitely more important than a more fully baked variant that takes several more months to emerge. In turn the positive discussions I would expect to emerge from the visibility of the minimalistic version would in all likelihood up the level of resources available to build the proper one.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Iain
> 
> <Consent Receipt Visual 22nd March 16.pptx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 12:43, Justin Richer <jricher at mit.edu <mailto:jricher at mit.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> This is exactly why it's important to define a standardized representation of the receipt (the signed JWT in our case) and have a reference implementation available of that standard.
>> 
>>  -- Justin
>> 
>> On 3/24/2016 4:16 AM, Iain Henderson wrote:
>>> Yes, useful thanks. Most pertinent points from the paper from my perspective are:
>>> 
>>> '
>>> Web sites build to the implementation, not the specification
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> and
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Keep it simple 
>>> 
>>>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 19:28, Mark Lizar - OCG <m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com <mailto:m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> <P3P_Retro_Final_0.pdf>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
>>> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org>
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing>
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160324/fcdeae46/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3591 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160324/fcdeae46/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list