- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:28:35 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 4/03/2016 1:52 p.m., Matthew Kerwin wrote: > On 04/03/2016 10:09 AM, "Mark Nottingham" wrote: >> >> Thanks, Mike. >> >> As I understand it, this is already implemented in one browser, which is > good in that we're looking for implementation. >> >> What do folks -- both other browser implementers and site folks -- think > about this? >> > > It's a practical issue with a simple (demonstrated) improvement. And hints > like this usually fall under "handy at best, harmless at worst" so I see no > harm in and of itself. > > That said, maybe I've been listening to PHK for too long, but I wonder if > all these cookie patches aren't just putting band-aids over a fundamentally > flawed system. How many (and how big) cookies do you need to receive before > this priority comes to the fore? > Oh, its absolutely a battered, abused, and broken mechanism. I am doubtful that many would even attempt to argue the contrary. My take has been from the beginning that we should start pruning away pieces of Cookie to prevent bad usages a much as possible. This particular baindaid proposal looks like it might double as a nice way to allow any recipient or relay to proactively prune away the low-priority Cookies in traffic when bandwidth gets overloaded. Can it be the beginning of an efficient Cookie deletion mechanism? Amos
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 02:29:11 UTC