Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Cookie Incrementalism

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:52:26 -0800

Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on adopting the Cookie Incrementalism work!

Based on this input, it looks like we have strong support in the working group to bring this content into RFC6265bis.

Mike and John, as editors of RFC6265bis, please work on merging in the appropriate content from draft-west-cookie-incrementalism.

Best,
Tommy & Mark

> On Nov 12, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Those with good memories will recall that when we started RFC6265bis, we required significant changes to the specification to be backed by a separate I-D, so that we could judge consensus and implementation support for it separately. See:
>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015OctDec/0165.html
> 
> In the spirit of that, we have one more proposal for consideration:
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-incrementalism-01
> 
> Parts of this were discussed at the recent interim:
>  https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/interim-20-10/rfc6265bis.pdf#page=3
> 
> Other parts (e.g., s 3.4-3.6) may need more discussion; if we adopt the draft, we may decide that they aren't worth pursuing, but by default we'd spend some time discussing them.
> 
> Please comment on whether you support adoption of this document into RFC6265bis. In particular, we're looking for implementer feedback because -- as before -- our goal for this effort is to be closely aligned with implementation behaviour. 
> 
> The Call for Adoption will run until 27 November.
> 
> - Mark and Tommy