W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Proposal: Cookie Priorities

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:12:39 +0100 (CET)
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Samuel Huang <huangs@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1603070855070.25615@tvnag.unkk.fr>
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Mike West wrote:

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-priority-00. Apologies for
> the years of delay. :/

Count me as another skeptic.

Since implementing support different cookie priority levels requires changing 
the server ends, wouldn't it be better to ask server admins to instead stop 
polluting the same domain with excessive amounts of cookies? I presume the 
primary cookie limit you're talking about number of cookies per domain. 
Alternatively, advocate for a higher limit (even though RFC6265 only suggests 
certain limits, browsers are free to user higher)?

What happens to cookies that are actually called 'Priority' ? It seems like a 
very standard name for a cookie and to me it seems like there's room for 
confusion for services that already use Priority set to Low/High etc. I don't 
see any mentioning of how to handle this.

This mechanism adds more complexity to an already complicated and messed up 
concept.

I'm also a bit sad to hear that Chrome+Google already implement this, as it 
feels like a certain degree of the old web war tactics all over again. It 
won't really matter what we say in this work group, as Google services will 
work less good without this feature and Chrome already works like this, so in 
order to keep users happy, user agents are strong-armed into following...

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 08:13:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC