Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

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
>>
>>