- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 08:57:53 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=eEOkNUp0r=bucO3jwRRYsVmnw6_xqM5ZWj30OsrWgVSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hey folks, Thanks again for the conversations at the recent HTTP Workshop. I was happy to hear some general support for Doing Something(tm) about cookies, and I look forward to more conversations about the direction and details of potential replacements. I owe y'all some responses to threads on HTTP State Tokens, and I hope to get to those this week. Still, I got concrete feedback from a few folks that it would be a better use of our time to focus on improvements to cookies, as they exist today, and aren't as amazing as we'd like them to be. I suspect you won't be shocked to learn that I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but I think you also won't be surprised that I'm very much in favor of incremental improvements to cookies where we see opportunities. https://mikewest.github.io/cookie-incrementalism/draft-west-cookie-incrementalism.html ("paginated" at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-incrementalism) sketches out two changes that I hope we can come to concensus on: 1. Treat cookies as `SameSite=Lax` by default. 2. Allow developers to opt-into the status quo behavior by explicitly setting `SameSite=None`, but require the `Secure` attribute when doing so. The document linked above spells those out in a bit more detail, and attempts to justify them both through principle and practical impact. WDYT? -mike
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2019 06:58:27 UTC