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

Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

From: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:59:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF8qwaBMYkAgtf_P2rfgbYW=DgWFe5pGuQmK=w=N3_OnbmQCJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I support adoption.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:54 AM Lily Chen <chlily@google.com> wrote:

> 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 16:00:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 13 November 2020 16:00:05 UTC