IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

Lily Chen <chlily@google.com> Fri, 13 November 2020 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372593A0E18 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:53:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXI7BZ1HkljU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 892F13A0DFF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kdbM6-0002iZ-FK for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:51:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:51:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kdbM6-0002iZ-FK@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from www-data by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <chlily@google.com>) id 1kdbM5-0002hu-6s for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:51:17 +0000
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <chlily@google.com>) id 1kdbLQ-0002el-SD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:50:36 +0000
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <chlily@google.com>) id 1kdbLP-0002sx-4q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:50:36 +0000
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id i13so7375919pgm.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:50:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DBXQo6uSzyELZiflIQnJEf7bknhfWt3VYkzEDe5YufQ=; b=tL28ovEnSJYICjqo8Fc9PmQhi2b/5/uLMHQZprzRSBuhIPKwfi1hq9dDoFrqYG/gu6 8Q5JK0akZ+8w8Du3PdtrqMYov0anA2fTUJPZwQFes4gqECq4hAoU4JMWQUH+ZuqRlTir ijwoc74bSYi1LT0aeW0cnuSd9RAYIlyV54rZX4th50sgwNnHSca1wg7Jt8eiOV4aoYjv M8loXNV+r42Gu062PevLEKewtRs8tZ2wGqCaohE80RG76kRcmuvNZE02xBhZntnuJMOQ exJiYhXIGi8URi3GFmp+xEpJOknKc9yc2JrwwhAXtQ263USK55cbNLwn7BVrsq/Pxx+/ CRTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=DBXQo6uSzyELZiflIQnJEf7bknhfWt3VYkzEDe5YufQ=; b=IC9eFLrdUUwbRmP0baH7XUJmuvG8cOOkh33HbefmFC5ZOvqvkpKkumOriFq9gP8whY 6rHTmjtXLvLBwv50axEEyeq9Krw9vspQZtyciynRXuYmD51A+mmOtUkuqbTO6YylfvmA TrOgho8i4sMrR+jy7VcWtvTSxfWU57NpyUE8uRVcnD7qomPJpiL/fUXVkxFDT/Xfz8zq W8vuWJvBt+LW+byptJclV9yiahyt/WuCg3YVv/XaI0BGV8Va4iKSasANayNfBpktqDM/ vEHJ2guEwTFufV8MwDOeX8RwDT/+eWl7RCsgUFglZ63LUkV+1cqri6kQ9P/UGm7kz+YK Ansg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533WdcYSqa0dJP42n9EGiBKYte2jshV7D6Uu7cIaO0ciSwXJLSTg IjlExhUNikPG+dPh7pVI34qkx8HmCfHn7tyrQPiTd15Ahmk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxn8ONYeiMy85d7JbaHw7hdbm8E2prPFXN2OVvSUYFBSsa1k31rpUwVeFLJBPjfXjqdbFvfHVMlQJwrCsaxQdw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d486:: with SMTP id s6mr3644416pju.115.1605282618339; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:50:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BE51D899-1C82-4E3A-A035-FD079CCBE333@mnot.net> <0fa5e1c1-51ad-3ef3-8937-303f565e7912@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <0fa5e1c1-51ad-3ef3-8937-303f565e7912@treenet.co.nz>
From: Lily Chen <chlily@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:50:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAE24OxzYKz=AbSHMJHK9jdy9XZ+GUYC55Kj9-EmihHCfcCT4Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b856305b3fefc6a"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d; envelope-from=chlily@google.com; helo=mail-pg1-x52d.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kdbLP-0002sx-4q 0642fef75569bfafb25ec7c54355c97a
X-caa-id: 9c4cb97216
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAE24OxzYKz=AbSHMJHK9jdy9XZ+GUYC55Kj9-EmihHCfcCT4Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38219
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I support adoption.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:58 AM Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 13/11/20 12:45 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Those with good memories will recall that when we started RFC6265bis, we
> required significant changes to the specification to be backed by a
> separate I-D, so that we could judge consensus and implementation support
> for it separately. See:
> >
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015OctDec/0165.html
> >
> > In the spirit of that, we have one more proposal for consideration:
> >    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-incrementalism-01
> >
> > Parts of this were discussed at the recent interim:
> >    https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/interim-20-10/rfc6265bis.pdf#page=3
> >
> > Other parts (e.g., s 3.4-3.6) may need more discussion; if we adopt the
> draft, we may decide that they aren't worth pursuing, but by default we'd
> spend some time discussing them.
> >
> > Please comment on whether you support adoption of this document into
> RFC6265bis. In particular, we're looking for implementer feedback because
> -- as before -- our goal for this effort is to be closely aligned with
> implementation behaviour.
> >
> > The Call for Adoption will run until 27 November.
> >
> > - Mark and Tommy
> >
>
>
> I support adoption.
>
>
> Amos
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email