- From: Steven Bingler <bingler@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:16:55 -0400
- To: iesg@ietf.org
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net, svan@elvis.ru
Hi Deb,
Thank you for your review and my apologies for the delay, I had to
take a hiatus.
> Section 5: (Recognizing that this is from the original RFC) The nested
> numbered lists are difficult to parse. For example Section 5.7, #6 has 3 sets
> of sub numbered lists that appear to be distinct. If these sub numbered lists
> are necessary (and when there is merely a #1 without a #2, one might argue it
> isn't 'necessary') then perhaps characters other than numbers might be clearer.
We went back and forth for a bit on different styles but ultimately
settled on keeping the existing bullets.
> Section 8: I agree with Valery that this section picks and chooses some
> example issues ('more salient issues'). I wonder if it isn't possible to give
> a 1-2 sentence overview of the general security issues associated with cookies.
> Something to set the stage, where what follows are examples of issues that
> have been seen over time (with or without mitigations). Sadly, I do not have
> proposed text, and indeed, it may not be possible/feasible.
We weren't able to come up with anything better. Perhaps we could work
in some concrete suggestions but without any we'll be keeping the
existing text.
> Section 10.1: Most (all?) of the WHATWG documents can be referenced as a
> snapshot to make them immutable. There might be other ways to do this, but
> this is the one I've seen used.
Other RFCs, such as rfc9163 and rfc9205, have the referenced anchors
be made permanent within the WHATWG document.
https://whatwg.org/working-mode#anchors
I've done the same for ours which will keep the links valid.
Thanks,
- Steven
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2025 18:17:10 UTC