Re: Cookies and schemes.

A minor comment on this exchange:

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:56 AM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> > 2. Perhaps we prefix the non-secure cookie names with `__Non-secure-`
> > rather than minting a new header?
>
> That might work.  It's new mechanisms, but not new-header-field new
> mechanisms.  More below.
>

I'm not an expert at this, but think I'm following the discussion in this
thread.

Is "Non-secure" the best term that could be used as a prefix? ISTM that
part of the game here may be shaming people into not continuing to use this
mechanism for months/years/ever, and "secure/non-secure" seems an awfully
overloaded term. Could the prefix be more precise about what's at stake if
you continue to use it?

Random example unlikely to be the best suggestion: compare the shame of
__Non-secure to the shame of __Trivially-Hijackable, if that's the case,
and it's the worst accurate thing you can think of. If not, please
substitute the worst possible accurate characterization.

Make good choices, of course.

Best,

Spencer