Re: RFC6265bis status

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Wed, 05 October 2016 06:26 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 A3CD6129520 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r20LYurlAr0i for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABDB4126B6D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1brfbL-0008TJ-Mq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 06:22:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 06:22:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1brfbL-0008TJ-Mq@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <daniel@haxx.se>) id 1brfbI-0008SW-9x for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 06:22:44 +0000
Received: from giant.haxx.se ([80.67.6.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <daniel@haxx.se>) id 1brfbF-0001zh-O6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 06:22:43 +0000
Received: from giant.haxx.se (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by giant.haxx.se (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-4) with ESMTPS id u956MIOI031868 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:22:18 +0200
Received: from localhost (dast@localhost) by giant.haxx.se (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id u956MI0I031864; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:22:18 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: giant.haxx.se: dast owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:22:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: Jim Manico <jim@manicode.com>
cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-Reply-To: <61025EF4-2E0E-4395-9F58-C0D8C88CE394@manicode.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610050817330.28134@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <2D2BCE5A-4EFD-453F-A928-40200715E226@mnot.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610050751260.28134@tvnag.unkk.fr> <61025EF4-2E0E-4395-9F58-C0D8C88CE394@manicode.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="1129329158-324859420-1475648538=:28134"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=80.67.6.50; envelope-from=daniel@haxx.se; helo=giant.haxx.se
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.327, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.64, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1brfbF-0001zh-O6 2f16784a45aec29b83d9dd0b7d5d41ef
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: RFC6265bis status
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.DEB.2.20.1610050817330.28134@tvnag.unkk.fr>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32478
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>

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Jim Manico wrote:

> If I may, why not allow multiple cookies per domain with the •same name• but 
> different values? This is already the case with request parameters in order 
> to support multi-select lists, why not cookies for similar use cases?

Note that these cookies I showed were set by the exact same domain and path, 
only with different domain properties (and only the leading dot changed) - so 
clearly Chrome and Firefox agree on how to deal with them while Edge and 
Safari have their own ideas. I don't see how them having different values 
would make anything different.

Multiple cookies could always be set for different paths on the same domain 
without problems.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se