Re: Cookies: Integration with external specs.

Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Mon, 22 February 2016 12:07 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 A947A1A019B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:07:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.385
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 mlv7TJSC5Z7C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:07:45 -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 5802C1A017D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aXpDR-0002ie-Vv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:03:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:03:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aXpDR-0002ie-Vv@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 <mkwst@google.com>) id 1aXpDL-0002h0-NX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:03:43 +0000
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mkwst@google.com>) id 1aXpDD-0004DO-St for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:03:41 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id bc4so80505413lbc.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:03:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=t0CFZEBp5BHlPISxMybNi7xRKm0e3X73rdBXxN+LM+4=; b=BywICEvXwLqJnob/AWGPYdnbzlgJU+7M3jiLGG6nb92BgO6Qunacae5Drx4LS/Kq6y n1dY1P3dsdFtG4ByYNWMMy+Tii+p640shgT3nTxBpvnuoWCCLMFrs7QalmaaTP1lb6/2 lCDgBxWoxCMqCvC9RhzhY1AV8RcszfayM7pAmyhAXD47Fu/sGNPEluir8SXMGxZf/IKm +x+LsGEnqcKBzlT8y43JiTmXsCn5Q9V43N090KxRIM8KFV08bTuL/t44Hb01Z8VZ48NF cee3kTUmp3Kzz6MvtmTFtwAYdi1cJNcBkOcPkqEHaBYlmeibsNzeqe3hecAAdbtnA/ZD 2Bqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=t0CFZEBp5BHlPISxMybNi7xRKm0e3X73rdBXxN+LM+4=; b=gDpKBbMyrOqG3RKjtaygoX+6bDlMYp9hSLlRfjA2t9WOvq58QLyGZIR1S/qpfmeWVD o3mMlXPZHI2VJibHuDrRrYKP4d5EIIxUnrQ0PnydmF+kw3dShP2EohWJsWJV5UvZxC4C rtEXdnlnJlsqYpX4dMNswGftpRAAyjE9G4ITOYegV6D/ntihdGaVG8+KxbNK+Gkw3aga 3wNXDG9vSp1QU5v/LePtpS31qqZZMCkvT4uLiYBRE/8h+aEBKUHMgQICXHjarq059jZO RyuMsGqA/vLFfLJh9BcM8ICsZVEofOdIlBOmMpHf8T6k9KD7zKBR0h2oHLQV5bv+Dxzj 5NCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTsn9TP+Xcvv6yEOfYUlCsQURVYbJ6sUzs6siX79cC5B5JXRPbo9ZFl3MpYKZRzbkvVhgGNNcEj/F7V40zE
X-Received: by 10.112.25.99 with SMTP id b3mr9971354lbg.11.1456142285459; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 03:58:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.170.98 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 03:57:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BA0DD0E0-292B-448A-9B4C-681B0E701983@mnot.net>
References: <CAKXHy=fQrHdWB_JhZAFuHuqPnUcsJBwSza0h6XYJuxGqO59n+w@mail.gmail.com> <0D8EFEB2-C275-40FA-A894-6C89CD2670C3@mnot.net> <CAKXHy=dUOjf=pyx8f0QgcrWP07hk+xaEkeMPWMoCy7c7Ris-4w@mail.gmail.com> <BA0DD0E0-292B-448A-9B4C-681B0E701983@mnot.net>
From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:57:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=dnKj4tzHxPnXPyZU2SkTEPve8fRbPs_CVpLYsR=h=X2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3eb76ab2484052c5a8b80"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.217.174; envelope-from=mkwst@google.com; helo=mail-lb0-f174.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.840, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 1aXpDD-0004DO-St 940a2f7ab58aa754b69e87dff7318a77
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Cookies: Integration with external specs.
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKXHy=dnKj4tzHxPnXPyZU2SkTEPve8fRbPs_CVpLYsR=h=X2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31087
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 Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> > On 19 Jan 2016, at 7:52 pm, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> > Hey Mike,
> >
> > On 18 Jan 2016, at 8:09 pm, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > While we have the cookies spec open, I think we should take a closer
> look at how that specification interacts with others. In particular, two
> things come to mind:
> > >
> > > * We should formalize the integration with Fetch (see step 11.1 of
> https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-network-or-cache-fetch and 9.3 of
> https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-network-fetch)
> >
> > What changes in the RFC would be necessary to do this?
> >
> > This would boil down to:
> >
> > * a light refactoring of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-5.2
> away from "When the user agent receives a Set-Cookie header field in an
> HTTP response", towards something more like a "Process a `Set-Cookie`
> header" algorithm that Fetch can pass the header value into explicitly.
> >
> > * A thin shim on top of the "cookie string" algorithm that actually sets
> the header for a Request. This could live in Fetch, I suppose, but seems
> better positioned in the Cookie spec.
> >
> > I can put together a brief I-D spelling out these changes.
>
> Please.
>

Taking another look at the text, I don't think this is worth doing in
RFC6265bis. I've submitted https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/221 to do
the work in the Fetch specification instead.

-mike