Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-19: (with COMMENT)

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