- From: Lily Chen <chlily@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:50:07 -0500
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAE24OxzYKz=AbSHMJHK9jdy9XZ+GUYC55Kj9-EmihHCfcCT4Ug@mail.gmail.com>
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 > >
Received on Friday, 13 November 2020 15:51:17 UTC