IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

Brad Lassey <lassey@google.com> Fri, 13 November 2020 00:05 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 5583D3A10D4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:05:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.247
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.247 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=unavailable 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 krL16A-l5iMx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:05:14 -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 C12553A10B1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kdMYG-0003DW-CU for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:02:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:02:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kdMYG-0003DW-CU@lyra.w3.org>
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 <lassey@google.com>) id 1kdMYF-0003Cc-MP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:02:51 +0000
Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lassey@google.com>) id 1kdMYE-0003xQ-3H for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:02:51 +0000
Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id s25so10678691ejy.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:02:44 -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 :cc; bh=x7hJSOU1Zc6Z4ib+xnQNhMctBuzcevnuzSyrihTJciI=; b=CB4Lejqt4PeLrUba9nAEEFY5c2QwCBbZGX88P/P2UajU1Le0WweXAPalNzq+Ap/th+ +koSfT92/XJ7rkRzF/ZEig1apisdnuE4xG0+xpRkpEEmPomTMKE2GWcM2aJiKGkY2ksb fXkyVzj5+U7zfXkh2wDXf3GUyrk2lknRjmAELQoFsHBEVgTg1H62FavrWThA7jtH3VrE lY0X8VJKPkC/CQ7Uuaz64i7cca/1CPvORrmjjbDNjDQ9Tn0V0eiqlfey1V474Ff5YHoW TsO2AYnu9eQWP1qkDOFK7E8fCaTy0hxyMm1WQcOeLpnyzYUDRjmupamgIAAbjweyk+2V zL6g==
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:cc; bh=x7hJSOU1Zc6Z4ib+xnQNhMctBuzcevnuzSyrihTJciI=; b=eDMQQt5VwTe1unf6DFSXUN6jLeWbQ/BAFYI6hSxKjWnGKg0jLlFBFzFArWjsj6z3jv hC2YzP6hH2uPk8oLkMueMV6QsUyhHzxLGfONVgc6Jjzpgao7fwVpKSBvratLt9uZmCnj 6arFvcXLD/gHLK2V10Fs7jL7ZKkkjuY+y5EFdipurNxnyesnGLx+S49OZ/k6OtM5BLQB pREGGFN19F+gCZ87MS4Ix0fISDXAgGXGyes3aBanwqbT15Jqwvy4ThwxpHk4BxcQWo5M wY1rl0vf3WnlUymVObUi97gwRWht9QtroyTnJZoI793dqOMVRW0bzWKMw9CLEBo9MUU1 U4Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530iYP352IGp2+amF6mtjzb5eqqwrIrfBJL201MxV8g9yg2ZNAtC sIWc9Wg5o4kLc3061jpzYC0CL+uw4Qk35H0tAM9YGRXlnFidQw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYxMqJqHn0LjbY+5S62eVSv35E45v7oDcVYlH6hK17aPFz16D80L1ctuMYL3+Mo9u/tsSLC+gZQvrKEw9KyLc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:804:: with SMTP id e4mr1764760ejd.420.1605225753533; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:02:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BE51D899-1C82-4E3A-A035-FD079CCBE333@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <BE51D899-1C82-4E3A-A035-FD079CCBE333@mnot.net>
From: Brad Lassey <lassey@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:01:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CALjsk17vzDyvRrAaLHVV1wjDjYktnsf2J-QaDdeFsi9aUsE=BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d36e8505b3f1be12"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::634; envelope-from=lassey@google.com; helo=mail-ej1-x634.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-21.6
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_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kdMYE-0003xQ-3H f68528038b606e7412f87253b2a7a986
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALjsk17vzDyvRrAaLHVV1wjDjYktnsf2J-QaDdeFsi9aUsE=BA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38211
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 Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:49 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email