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