- 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>
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