RFC6265bis status

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 05 October 2016 02:25 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EECD127077 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gwcQtJ0bRi6T for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7E33127076 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1brbqC-00046y-6Q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 02:21:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 02:21:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1brbqC-00046y-6Q@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1brbq9-00046C-LI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 02:21:49 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1brbq7-00012y-TE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 02:21:49 +0000
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8754122E257; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:21:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Message-Id: <2D2BCE5A-4EFD-453F-A928-40200715E226@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:21:20 +1100
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
To: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.351, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1brbq7-00012y-TE 23fadf1c58199b7eace3ce3c95c8ed9e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RFC6265bis status
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/2D2BCE5A-4EFD-453F-A928-40200715E226@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32472
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

So far, we've adopted the following draft proposals for changing the Cookie specification:

- Leave Secure Cookies Alone
- Cookie Prefixes
- Same-Site Cookies

In Berlin, we discussed "Cookie Priorities" and "EAT Cookies"; in that room, there was only support for adopting the latter.

Therefore, absent any pushback on the list (now is your opportunity!), we'll consider <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-omnomnom> as adopted for the RFC6265bis effort. 

As discussed in Berlin, that doesn't mean that the draft will appear in the final work product verbatim (as with all of the draft proposals); only that it's in-scope for discussion.

It seems like we're at a point where we can start incorporating the draft proposals into a complete document, so that we can see how it works as a whole, identify any remaining issues, and discuss them (along with the outstanding ones; see <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A6265bis>).

Mike West has graciously agreed to edit the document, and should soon be publishing a -00 draft with minimal changes from 6265 as a starting point for further work.


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/