- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:25:55 +1100
- To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 19 Jan 2016, at 7:52 pm, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Hey Mike, > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 8:09 pm, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > > > > While we have the cookies spec open, I think we should take a closer look at how that specification interacts with others. In particular, two things come to mind: > > > > * We should formalize the integration with Fetch (see step 11.1 of https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-network-or-cache-fetch and 9.3 of https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-network-fetch). > > What changes in the RFC would be necessary to do this? > > This would boil down to: > > * a light refactoring of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-5.2 away from "When the user agent receives a Set-Cookie header field in an HTTP response", towards something more like a "Process a `Set-Cookie` header" algorithm that Fetch can pass the header value into explicitly. > > * A thin shim on top of the "cookie string" algorithm that actually sets the header for a Request. This could live in Fetch, I suppose, but seems better positioned in the Cookie spec. > > I can put together a brief I-D spelling out these changes. Please. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 04:26:33 UTC