Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

I support adoption. However, I’d like to share some thoughts.

A lot of these incremental enhancements are for a web browser where a site, the Public Suffix List, a browsing context, the user agent, and a browsing session all make sense. Apple’s implementation of cookies is in a separate HTTP networking layer. Libcurl and libsoup are similar in my mind. When such a layer is used for web browsing, the proposed incremental enhancements make sense but they don’t always in other contexts. I don’t know the best way to make that clear. Maybe it’s obvious and we won’t have any problems but take the new proposed definition of session lifetime. It’s tied to “top-level browsing context” and “same-site documents.” That doesn’t make sense for a non-browser application using HTTP and cookies.

I’m sure we can work this out as the integration into the spec takes place.

   Regards, John

> On Nov 13, 2020, at 7:50 AM, Mike Taylor <miketaylr@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/12/20 5:45 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I support adoption.
> 
> thanks,
> Mike
> 
>