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

Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:08:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gOFYckAmPKh8E1YP+pbxwTF4UwOie3xOgWgACZEC4TWiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Lassey <lassey@google.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
I also support adoption.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Brad Lassey <lassey@google.com> wrote:

> 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 00:08:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 13 November 2020 00:08:39 UTC