Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-19: (with COMMENT)

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-19: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for working on this specification.

I have following comments, I believe it would improve the specification if they
are addressed -

# The following two normative behaviors could easily be part of section 3
overview. Is there any particular reason to put these in the introduction
section ?

     To maximize interoperability with user agents, servers SHOULD limit
     themselves to the well-behaved profile defined in Section 4 when
     generating cookies.

     User agents MUST implement the more liberal processing rules defined in
     Section 5, in order to maximize interoperability with existing servers
     that do not conform to the well-behaved profile defined in Section 4.

# Who are "we" in section 5.2.2 's Note?

# Can we be more specific on how section 5.2.2.2 is related to set-cookies and
cookies header specification? It was obvious that service worker implementation
should follow the w3c specification, but how it that related to this
specification? Is there any specifics that the implementer's of this
specification must consider?

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2025 15:50:46 UTC