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

Am 29.04.2025 um 08:22 schrieb Daniel Stenberg:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2025, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> This is a Call for Adoption of the following document:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-annevk-johannhof-httpbis- 
>> cookies-01.html
> 
> I'm curious on this group's, and the IETF's in general, take on 
> references to (moving) WHATWG documents instead of IETF ones, like this 
> draft introduces.
> 
> See [INFRA] and [URL].
> 
> I'm in particular concernced about the second, as I believe its 
> inconsistencies with RFC 3986 and the effects of those differences (if 
> any) on cookies are hard to assess. In particular since that document, 
> contrary to IETF documents, is a "living" document. What was true 
> yesterday might not be true tomorrow. If there is no (practical) 
> difference, I figure referencing RFC 3986 would be better, as that is 
> fixed and known.

Yes.

(and I feel we have that discussion the 1000th time)

If RFC 3986 is ok for 6265, why isn't that the case for the revision?

Speaking of which, why do we replace a document that we just sent to the 
IESG with something that (on first glance) looks like a completely new 
document?

Do we have a problem statement somewhere?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2025 04:30:17 UTC