W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

From: Brad Lassey <lassey@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:01:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CALjsk17vzDyvRrAaLHVV1wjDjYktnsf2J-QaDdeFsi9aUsE=BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
I support adoption

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:49 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Those with good memories will recall that when we started RFC6265bis, we
> required significant changes to the specification to be backed by a
> separate I-D, so that we could judge consensus and implementation support
> for it separately. See:
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015OctDec/0165.html
> In the spirit of that, we have one more proposal for consideration:
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-incrementalism-01
> Parts of this were discussed at the recent interim:
>   https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/interim-20-10/rfc6265bis.pdf#page=3
> Other parts (e.g., s 3.4-3.6) may need more discussion; if we adopt the
> draft, we may decide that they aren't worth pursuing, but by default we'd
> spend some time discussing them.
> Please comment on whether you support adoption of this document into
> RFC6265bis. In particular, we're looking for implementer feedback because
> -- as before -- our goal for this effort is to be closely aligned with
> implementation behaviour.
> The Call for Adoption will run until 27 November.
> - Mark and Tommy
Received on Friday, 13 November 2020 00:02:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 13 November 2020 00:02:52 UTC