Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 23:26:36 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the HTTP WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism
        Authors         : Mike West
                          John Wilander
	Filename        : draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-04.txt
	Pages           : 51
	Date            : 2020-01-20

Abstract:
   This document defines the HTTP Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields.
   These header fields can be used by HTTP servers to store state
   (called cookies) at HTTP user agents, letting the servers maintain a
   stateful session over the mostly stateless HTTP protocol.  Although
   cookies have many historical infelicities that degrade their security
   and privacy, the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields are widely used
   on the Internet.  This document obsoletes RFC 6265.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Daniel Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:46:07 +0100 (CET)

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, [email-masked] wrote:

Section 2.3 says:

>  The term "public suffix" is defined in a note in Section 5.3 of
>  [RFC6265] as "a domain that is controlled by a public registry", and
>  are also known as "effective top-level domains" (eTLDs).  For
>  example, "site.example"'s public suffix is "com".

This confuses me greatly. Is this a typo? Surely "site.example"'s public 
suffice is "example" ? How is that related to "com" ?

The following paragraph seems to have got it right.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:04:46 +0100

> The following paragraph seems to have got it right.

Seems to be an editorial mistake when addressing
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1017>.

Now another question is why this references RFC6265??? (That problem
goes back further).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Daniel Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:14:44 +0100 (CET)

> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1017>.

The same text (and mistake) is also in section 5.4, step 5 - which seems to 
mostly duplicate the same text.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:18:19 +0100

> Now another question is why this references RFC6265??? (That problem

-> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1033>

Best regards, Julian