W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Calls for Adoption -- Cookie-Related Specifications

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:07:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=ccBtXWrbEUSXPwY8hNN=tZ62u2LQ39n9gAkN_z0Taq5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> As discussed earlier <
> http://www.w3.org/mid/FAF2C2E8-0A6A-4C34-B4C4-57190AAE118D@mnot.net>, we
> are going to use a Call for Adoption process to assure that what we specify
> in terms of changes to Cookies -- if anything -- will actually get
> implemented.
> Based on what we've talked about so far, I believe two specifications are
> ready for consideration:
> * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-leave-secure-cookies-alone-04
> * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-prefixes-05
> So, please discuss on-list:
> 1) Your intent to implement these specifications (or lack thereof).

Chrome intends to ship initial implementations of both of these drafts in
~49 (~April, 2016).

2) Your support for these specifications (or lack thereof).

I think they're pretty solid, and look forward to polishing them up with
the help of folks in this forum.

> 3) Any other Internet-Drafts that you believe we should consider in a
> revision of the Cookie specification.

I think https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-origin-cookies-01 is more or
less completely obviated by cookie prefixes. I've let it expire, and don't
intend to pick it back up.

I think https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-first-party-cookies is still
worth experimenting with, and have 90% of an implementation in Chrome
behind a flag. I wouldn't want to hold up progress on the two drafts you've
highlighted above, but I do think the notion is worth exploring.

Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 14:08:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC