Subject: inconsistency in draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07 SameSite default treatment?

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 13:22:41 -0600

Looking at parts of draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07 today I noticed what
is maybe a little inconsistency around the treatment of the default for
SameSite.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07.html#section-4.1.2.7
has:
'If the "SameSite" attribute's value is something other than these three
known keywords, the attribute's value will be subject to a default
enforcement mode that is equivalent to "Lax".'
and parts of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07.html#section-5.5
and
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07.html#name-draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07
also suggest Lax as the default. As does (relatively recent) current
behaviour from most/all browsers.

but
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07.html#section-5.3.7
ends with this sentence that looks like it's maybe left over from when the
default enforcement mode was "None":
'Note: This algorithm maps the "None" value, as well as any unknown value,
to the "None" behavior, which is helpful for backwards compatibility when
introducing new variants.'

-- 
_CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 
by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your 
computer. Thank you._

---

From: Lily Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 17:21:37 -0400

Thanks for pointing that out! You're correct, the note should have been
removed or updated. I'll fix that!

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 3:26 PM Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*

---

From: Lily Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 17:29:34 -0400

Following up on this, it looks like it was already removed
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c467bb923e727f7b03e5a7b6430c5fc91445aa1d#diff-c96f4fab694f25d91c3ae6f4cd68ae735dbcb33dcbb2f4b79a13675b293caa7b>
(thanks Filippo!) and will be reflected in the -08 version of the draft.

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 5:21 PM Lily Chen <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 'Note: This algorithm maps the "None" value, as well as any unknown
>> value, to the "None" behavior, which is helpful for backwards compatibility
>> when introducing new variants.'
>>
>>
>>
>>

---

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 08:12:46 -0600

Thanks Lily, and sorry for the noise. I should have checked the editor's
draft before asking about it on list.

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 3:29 PM Lily Chen <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Looking at parts of draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07 today I noticed
>>> what is maybe a little inconsistency around the treatment of the default
>>> for SameSite.
>>>
>>>