Call for Adoption: Two More Cookie Drafts / RFC6265bis status

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Call for Adoption: Two More Cookie Drafts / RFC6265bis status

Mark Nottingham-2
We've adopted a number of drafts for the upcoming RFC6265bis, including:

* Leave Secure Cookies Alone
* Cookie Prefixes
* Same-Site Cookies

Additionally, we've identified some differences between the spec and implementations:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/159

At this point I'm comfortable discussing that specific issue as part of the bis drafting process, rather than requiring an I-D for it. If that makes anyone uncomfortable, or if you'd like to write that draft, please speak up.

That leaves the following two drafts for consideration:

* Cookie Priorities - <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-priority>
* EAT Cookies - <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-omnomnom>

As with previous drafts for this effort, please make statements of support and intent to implement, or lack thereof. If you have concerns, please state why, rather than just saying "no."

If we can make a decision about them promptly, I think that in Berlin (or even beforehand) we'll be a point where can discuss any issues with them and start work on RFC6265bis itself. Therefore, please respond promptly.

Of course, that assumes that there are no other proposals forthcoming. I'm not aware of any; if you'd like to make one, please do so soon.

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Adoption: Two More Cookie Drafts / RFC6265bis status

Patrick McManus
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Mark Nottingham <[hidden email]> wrote:

That leaves the following two drafts for consideration:

* Cookie Priorities - <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-priority>
* EAT Cookies - <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-omnomnom>


In Berlin Mark sought a sense of the room on adopting these two drafts. You can find the minutes of the discussion at
https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf96/minutes.md#cookie-priorities
The sense of the room was:

    1] do not adopt draft-west-cookie-priority
    2] adpot draft-thomson-http-omnomnom

This email is meant to confirm that on the mailing list. Please send any comments you have that should be addressed before adoption (realizing that adopted documents aren't meant to be already complete - this is just adoption.)
 
-Patrick