W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

"1:n domain cookies" issue status

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:13:30 PDT
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Jun16.161330pdt."2763"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/953
The story so far (summarized by me):

 Marc is arguing for inclusion of a feature ("1-n domain cookies")
 which has not yet been deployed but which Marc thinks is useful.
 In particular, this is a feature which is not prohibited but
 is specified as 'undefined' in the text.

 Dave Kristol points out that it is not current practice. Koen objects
 to the feature on privacy grounds, and Ben rejects this argument,
 saying that the privacy concerns are already there, and that the
 feature would add no additional concerns.

 Marc asks (sarcastically) whether OPTIONS, TRACE, Age are "current
 practice", presumably under the argument "if those got in, why
 not this?".

 Various people (well, Marc and Koen) speculate about the politics of
 privacy concerns in Europe vs. anti-gum-chewing countries, browser
 vendor PR and crucifixion by the press, the market, corporate
 politics, the future of the Internet, press clippings in the Wall
 Street Journal, and cookie management suites.

Does anyone other than Marc feel that our cookies need these
particular chocolate chips before we can pass them around?  We want to
bake the best cookies we can, but we don't want them to get stale.

Since we're nearly done, it's important to properly assess the
sentiment of the working group.  As a reminder, the question is
whether cookies without 1-n cookie domains is suitable for "Proposed
Standard" according to RFC 1602.

Despite the vigorous defense of this enhancment, I don't see
widespread support.  The cookie draft has been under consideration for
many months without "1-n cookie domains", and "lack of 1-n cookie
domains" has not been raised as an objection by any of the reviewers
heretofore. So I'm inclined to believe that the 'rough consensus' is
that we should proceed without this feature, but would like to hear
from others.

Received on Sunday, 16 June 1996 16:17:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC