- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:07:06 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=ccBtXWrbEUSXPwY8hNN=tZ62u2LQ39n9gAkN_z0Taq5g@mail.gmail.com>
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. -mike
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 14:08:05 UTC