Subject: June Interim: call for topics

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:23:22 +1000

Hi everyone,

We've roughed in an agenda for the upcoming agenda here:
  https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/interim-21-06/agenda.html

If you have a topic you think would benefit from WG discussion, please say so. We prefer topics to be discussed on-list before we devote meeting time to them, so if you haven't already done so, please start a mailing list discussion thread first.

Cheers,

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

---

From: Erik Nygren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 22:27:36 -0400

I'd like to add on Alt-Svc-bis to the agenda if possible.  There was a
mailing list discussion following the last
interim.  I've started pulling together some notes on candidate things to
include
(based on items in the last mail thread as well as other items that have
come
up since) and either Mike Bishop or myself will pull together a draft
and/or presentation
as well as start some additional mail threads.

The biggest urgency comes from defining interaction between HTTPS RRs and
Alt-Svc
as the HTTPS RR draft deferred much of this to a future Alt-Svc draft.

Thanks, Erik

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:26 AM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If you have a topic you think would benefit from WG discussion, please say
> so. We prefer topics to be discussed on-list before we devote meeting time
> to them, so if you haven't already done so, please start a mailing list
> discussion thread first.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 13:45:47 +1000

Hi Erik,

Sounds reasonable. Please get a draft out (if you're going to do it) ASAP, to give people time to read.

Do you think 15 minutes would cover it?

Cheers,

> On 21 May 2021, at 12:27 pm, Erik Nygren <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I'd like to add on Alt-Svc-bis to the agenda if possible.  There was a mailing list discussion following the last 
> interim.  I've started pulling together some notes on candidate things to include
> (based on items in the last mail thread as well as other items that have come
> up since) and either Mike Bishop or myself will pull together a draft and/or presentation
> The biggest urgency comes from defining interaction between HTTPS RRs and Alt-Svc

---

From: "Meiling Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 15:38:59 +0800

Hi Mark,
If time permits, I'd like to add one for the topic of  http2 window size setting, 15 minutes is ok.

We describe it in detail in the draft draft-chen-httpbis-window-size-use-case-00(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-httpbis-window-size-use-case/).
Meanwhile,  we proposed a solution to the problem, by define the minimum value setting mechanism of HTTP2.0 Window and Window_update, and a Window_update frame sending
mechanism. We describe interactive process in detail in the draft draft-chen-httpbis-window-size-00 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-httpbis-window-size/) .
 
From: Mark Nottingham
Date: 2021-05-20 12:23
To: [email-masked] Group
CC: Tommy Pauly
Subject: June Interim: call for topics
Hi everyone,

 
Cheers,

---

From: Rafal Pietrak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 16:59:42 +0200

Hello everybody,

If possible, I'd appreciate a couple of minutes for my cookies radius
proposal (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pietrak-cookie-scope/)

NOTE: This group was recommended to me by independent drafts editor, but
I've received only one comment to it, so I'm not quite sure if this
topic is of any particular interest to members of the group. .... and
thus if it's worth a place on the meeting agenda.

Should that be the case, may be someone could advice me on any other
ietf working groups, that could possibly be more interested in ACCEPTING
or CRITICS-and-DECLINE of that proposal.

with best regards,

-R

-- 
Rafał Pietrak

---

From: Daniel Veditz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:36:15 -0700

> proposal (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pietrak-cookie-scope/)

Mark's answer[1] to another recent cookie proposal applies here too. For
now the group is only considering cookie proposals as part of RFC6265bis.
This is on the agenda for this meeting but your proposal does not yet have
the support to be incorporated into it.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2021AprJun/0114.html

> or CRITICS-and-DECLINE of that proposal.

This IS the group for the topic, and anywhere else you try is likely to
bounce you back here. What you really need to do is drum up support for
this. Are there web sites that want to use this functionality enough to
change their code to use it? Are there client implementers fired up to
support Radius (browsers of course, but more than just browsers)? Is there
only support for part of it, and if so could that be solved in a different
way?

My own prejudice is that I would never want "World" because I don't trust
sharing my cookies with all those other unknown apps. The distinction
between Tabs and Windows is lost on me because in at least some browsers
you can drag tabs or groups of tabs from window to window. "Viewport" as a
stricter definition of how "session" is often interpreted by browsers might
be interesting, and better backwards compatibility than simply
redefining/clarifying the meaning of a session cookie.  For some uses, like
banks, the existing clear-site-data feature might be good enough, so you'll
need to sell folks on why it isn't.

-Dan Veditz

---

From: "W. Felix Handte" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 17:38:41 -0400

Hello all,

After a somewhat long hiatus, I have recently resumed work on 
draft-handte-httpbis-dict-sec. I plan to get a new version up in the 
next couple weeks.

I don't have any specific updates that require time at the meeting, 
other than that I would like to resurface the topic to the group.

Thanks,
Felix