IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposal: Cookie Priorities

Francesco Chemolli <kinkie@squid-cache.org> Mon, 07 March 2016 10:15 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA8B1B3E17 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:15:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 pY0e10tFQzOm for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:15:10 -0800 (PST)
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 22F531B3E18 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1acs7Q-0003Fd-RF for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:10:28 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:10:28 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1acs7Q-0003Fd-RF@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gkinkie@gmail.com>) id 1acs7L-0003EV-W6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:10:24 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gkinkie@gmail.com>) id 1acs7F-00046i-4Q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:10:22 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l68so78161949wml.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 02:09:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=57g4rMYRqhKjGdgqvun57wi/hXj2jzqbDimILeqlwWw=; b=upMPgnsIU2gR3ODcxwxYxBuJxRrILthYRpQ6CcQ0hcNZpxeWU6FfHX91URovisOIu6 I6NMLODsRMHxzREH49a7woRsDBI1EqX1XA9KUJ1UEGgEUJvyOTR9qVI8c21jpqj6zQcn I122VeW6ErHg166I7y0REDSTf45ff7q0Z2MLMswpD7koSRNfDGoRN78r2FaMhSoRWeJL ucV5xSOlD2v87hoM6AsJURzy/t1N9SlxuF3FpNZhRJciKi34G6Pgsvmic9NoOnbn+hiH auGfmI4rZn+A3oWCDP7URksXunVA0gKN6na4SWCxukIQgyaI6NVCnkAXZSkQyZQNDzbP 8IwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=57g4rMYRqhKjGdgqvun57wi/hXj2jzqbDimILeqlwWw=; b=RqEpw8ecVv804AGaAuY0R5uzMfxP09uq9z+FN7OeSYTDkGevbeKBUtzOKnGcc0NkyL O7czhiMZWe5foKxRMjUJIKLFA4PWYJhyD040mCXReFT9+J4vsl7rGANKdeOZe7uqd0GE EJpWALKwlIdNBGe3NGJRsT0wmsNIrvciSl9p40mZjiV9sIyHS9jX8HE+Fr2HJHbk7OkY Pf6IwafWjrmM1BmngLG5SBE4w1ecl2KIVcN3i8MpUIwyF2PMmxB304QF+w+UDQS/LdaY Zu7H0CWDaNjRFCRDKKcXVedpLe0R0uzGOr/78TVQD76kUHM9vEaTBeFUU6YRHTFd3CJX /RJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIwqWdmao10C1XmlFLJ0VV/pMQAPhk6qAXGFDmutgElfJ/g7qUqhCiYBZNYWspP254XhTG8S1mHItDTTA==
X-Received: by 10.28.60.84 with SMTP id j81mr12204501wma.91.1457345390486; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 02:09:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gkinkie@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.85.116 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:09:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACweHNDTeO1w1gnVvC3JMcOXnvHkye-PEd_URiKex7Awm7dfKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKXHy=dvxE5f25_xx3mKTc+XRDU_Hp=uFDy-iL-_c0s+xHGydw@mail.gmail.com> <4F1B2115-C2BB-42AD-A5AB-EC02E9598ACB@mnot.net> <CACweHNCFzsrc1HacyFdj6Oigm1pxJaeqFjXWaZC9jz-oYboymQ@mail.gmail.com> <56DCE753.6020409@treenet.co.nz> <CACweHNDTeO1w1gnVvC3JMcOXnvHkye-PEd_URiKex7Awm7dfKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francesco Chemolli <kinkie@squid-cache.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:09:30 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: OE8JKR1iR3i7TjJwJJdQytF8nKs
Message-ID: <CA+Y8hcNJSW07bj+OoOfpCvYpYai5wG1uTtAnfOk3F3bsO2SB5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=gkinkie@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm0-f53.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1acs7F-00046i-4Q 1a1a42dd209963c5b0a0864fcc33facf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Cookie Priorities
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+Y8hcNJSW07bj+OoOfpCvYpYai5wG1uTtAnfOk3F3bsO2SB5g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31213
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>

> Regarding "Priority=High": Currently cookies are often used on the critical
> path, and these existing cookies don't have a "Priority" attribute. We can't
> define a new spec that retroactively mandates that implementers have to add
> the attribute, so I imagine we would probably want to define it so that "no
> Priority" is as high as "High Priority." (Unless we're proposing to define a
> new supe..uh..'more important' cookie.) So all the existing dead wood
> remains, and the path of least resistance for implementers who want to
> comply with the spec is: don't do anything. Thus it's not a valuable
> addition.

..why?
Cookie priorities are relative and anchored to an authority. It's up
to the UA to define pruning strategies but I doubt the implementors
would consider priority as an absolute value.
The proposal mentions "Medium" as being the default. I see no harm in it.
This said, I'm adding my voice to the chorus hoping for a new
mechanism replacing cookies to be defined.

Francesco

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email