Re: Call for Adoption: draft-annevk-johannhof-httpbis-cookies

On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 08:05:30AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Everyone,
> 
> This is a Call for Adoption of the following document:
>   https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-annevk-johannhof-httpbis-cookies-01.html
> 
> This is a further revision of the Cookie specification, based upon
> rfc6265bis, which has been approved by the IESG. It's expected that the final
> RFC from that process will contain a few changes suggested by the IESG's
> review as well as the RFC Editor; these will be back ported to the draft if
> we adopt it.
> 
> See a diff from the current 6265bis here:
>   https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis&doc_2=draft-annevk-johannhof-httpbis-cookies
> 
> We have discussed this document a few times:
>   https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf120/minutes.html#revising-cookies-again
>   https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf120/future-cookies.pdf
>   https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf122/minutes.html#cookies-http-state-management-mechanism
> 
> As in past revisions of this specification, adding any significant new
> features will require a separate specification, for which we'll issue a
> separate Call for Adoption.
> 
> As a reminder, adopting a document does not imply consensus on its contents;
> issues can and will be raised to change it. We are agreeing on a starting
> point for our work. 
> 
> Please state whether or not you support adoption in response to this e-mail.
> If you do not support adoption, explaining your reasoning would help us
> evaluate consensus.

I've glanced a bit over the diff and find that this draft seems to be a
bit less browser-centric than what tends to happen each time with cookies,
so it goes in the right direction, by specifying more how a protocol element
works and presuming less what each side must do with it.

+1 from me for adoption.

Willy

Received on Monday, 21 April 2025 09:16:23 UTC