IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposal: Cookie Priorities

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Fri, 04 March 2016 00:58 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 DC4701B3103 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:58:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.285
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, 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 vKtT0S_18IQs for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:58:27 -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 807381B3102 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1abdzt-0003aA-Rp for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:53:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:53:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1abdzt-0003aA-Rp@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 <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1abdzo-0003Wv-4Y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:53:32 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com ([209.85.218.47]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1abdze-00065W-8P for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:53:26 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id r187so27851168oih.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:53:02 -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:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=4l8MLZ/jWSJST7Oo/M9wrut4gXSBPbEdHnlXH4jjxHw=; b=xGeJSMboYxgnCrjrvQwmAZCuQK7ZOJuzWLzcD8zFD9iPXYmmEASSZMwEdkxWof6Qpi 661LBfUG1a8hXRbQ/E54FZshwdt2CgDjnXC2qzY6yAWMua+NKjmR66jTMV55xORT3kih leQl8dXs9fipSnkjPv/AHWLXTmxOXggKhGuOYhEUIaSg6veOXZMEH2wLImlEnPe/H5OT MxNispgpTr5cdZgNdN5cLGxab6xIvnH/KfWyB1skIyM14J7i5B3miQdG8x7CoIXFf5cz U4nvWHcu4e3HYP4wHvMgz2OWuqPSB4qdvHxjFn8ar57fpEpWo0DIkoZSQd0femZpD9Nr eiSA==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=4l8MLZ/jWSJST7Oo/M9wrut4gXSBPbEdHnlXH4jjxHw=; b=loHdqxiLSB6NBoblKzBoXBV5+jN4syjvX0PRGteM6vPfHpup2hL4QktEoLzHTLH81f VwKeK/SX+RNkoHNRt/209CofpC5KThWsEzCUXZ66fkUDRPdQLkVPBVrUO2/MhHRpS+vP GUY+pYetsxfLWXMTo6agQKaJtieGhYFh2n2McN17d/wkDKMuhdGOVruWjZbZdg+ul3g/ hodrkuvfcHJdnZKuwLnP5vqUFi0gSM9QVW2U3N1C/g76ixmZdoh8rd3U+bOrTT4jfoEm Md4AEMYF7a0JDZ/5ghGo68x9p876hnROkB5FuZwgq/3o+fWLbdbECvSJxJ7m7OD5lHR2 DDXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIzDxyN93Qr0Udb3zfLs1BiphyURvPIZbbp3X+4uNSigW7tN8WOiaMxeABVUMg0UMyN7ryFjeXESqhnKQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.201.216 with SMTP id z207mr4041916oif.98.1457052776289; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.202.181.10 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.181.10 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:52:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F1B2115-C2BB-42AD-A5AB-EC02E9598ACB@mnot.net>
References: <CAKXHy=dvxE5f25_xx3mKTc+XRDU_Hp=uFDy-iL-_c0s+xHGydw@mail.gmail.com> <4F1B2115-C2BB-42AD-A5AB-EC02E9598ACB@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:52:56 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: o1g-cH-V1Nx4e7EO3PYyLe8ORI0
Message-ID: <CACweHNCFzsrc1HacyFdj6Oigm1pxJaeqFjXWaZC9jz-oYboymQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c182ae265bdb052d2e89d4"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.47; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f47.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.783, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 1abdze-00065W-8P 8e2e53f58e4b65b055a74534b239a9ec
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Cookie Priorities
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHNCFzsrc1HacyFdj6Oigm1pxJaeqFjXWaZC9jz-oYboymQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31174
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 04/03/2016 10:09 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> As I understand it, this is already implemented in one browser, which is
good in that we're looking for implementation.
>
> What do folks -- both other browser implementers and site folks -- think
about this?
>

It's a practical issue with a simple (demonstrated) improvement. And hints
like this usually fall under "handy at best, harmless at worst" so I see no
harm in and of itself.

That said, maybe I've been listening to PHK for too long, but I wonder if
all these cookie patches aren't just putting band-aids over a fundamentally
flawed system. How many (and how big) cookies do you need to receive before
this priority comes to the fore?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email