Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

I support adoption.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:58 AM Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 13/11/20 12:45 pm, Mark Nottingham 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
> >
>
>
> I support adoption.
>
>
> Amos
>
>