Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-07-23
|
15 | Mark Nottingham | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Yes - we had broad participation, especially from implementers. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Not particularly. We used a process where major changes required a separate draft to be adopted and achieve consensus before we incorporated them. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Yes, a few. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. There has been participation from members of the WHATWG, which is the most relevant body. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG here (yet). 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. ABNF has been listed. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. This is a bis. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) There are some spurious line length warnings and a few non-ASCII punctuation marks; I assume these can be corrected during editing as/if necessary. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? USASCII (also referenced by 6265) is widely understood and usable, but the actual reference may require some hoop jumping. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. Yes and yes. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document updates two HTTP field name registrations and creates a new cookie attribute registry; all appears to be in order. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. The cookie attribute registration. No DE. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2024-07-23
|
15 | Mark Nottingham | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-07-23
|
15 | Mark Nottingham | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-07-21
|
15 | Steven Bingler | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-15.txt |
2024-07-21
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-07-21
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Mike West , Steven Bingler |
2024-07-21
|
15 | Steven Bingler | Uploaded new revision |
2024-07-09
|
14 | Mark Nottingham | Notification list changed to mnot@mnot.net because the document shepherd was set |
2024-07-09
|
14 | Mark Nottingham | Document shepherd changed to Mark Nottingham |
2024-07-09
|
14 | Mark Nottingham | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2024-07-09
|
14 | Mark Nottingham | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2024-05-02
|
14 | Mark Nottingham | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2024-05-02
|
14 | Steven Bingler | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-14.txt |
2024-05-02
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-05-02
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Mike West , Steven Bingler |
2024-05-02
|
14 | Steven Bingler | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-15
|
13 | Steven Bingler | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-13.txt |
2023-11-15
|
13 | Steven Bingler | New version approved |
2023-11-15
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Mike West , Steven Bingler |
2023-11-15
|
13 | Steven Bingler | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-11
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-05-10
|
12 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-12.txt |
2023-05-10
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-05-10
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Mike West , Steven Bingler |
2023-05-10
|
12 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-07
|
11 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-11.txt |
2022-11-07
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-11-07
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Lily Chen , Mike West , Steven Englehardt , httpbis-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-11-07
|
11 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-07
|
10 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-04-24
|
10 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-10.txt |
2022-04-24
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-04-24
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Lily Chen , Mike West , Steven Englehardt |
2022-04-24
|
10 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-22
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-10-19
|
09 | Lily Chen | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-09.txt |
2021-10-19
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-19
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Lily Chen , Mike West , Steven Englehardt |
2021-10-19
|
09 | Lily Chen | Uploaded new revision |
2021-06-02
|
08 | Lily Chen | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-08.txt |
2021-06-02
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-06-02
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Mike West , httpbis-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-06-02
|
08 | Lily Chen | Uploaded new revision |
2020-12-07
|
07 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-07.txt |
2020-12-07
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-12-07
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Mike West |
2020-12-07
|
07 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-22
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-05-26
|
06 | Mark Nottingham | Added to session: interim-2020-httpbis-02 |
2020-04-20
|
06 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-06.txt |
2020-04-20
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-20
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mike West , John Wilander |
2020-04-20
|
06 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-20
|
06 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-05
|
05 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-05.txt |
2020-02-05
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-05
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Wilander , Mike West |
2020-02-05
|
05 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-05
|
05 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-20
|
04 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-04.txt |
2020-01-20
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-20
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Adam Barth , Mike West |
2020-01-20
|
04 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-20
|
04 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-29
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-04-27
|
03 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-03.txt |
2019-04-27
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-27
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Adam Barth , Mike West |
2019-04-27
|
03 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-04
|
02 | Mark Nottingham | This document now replaces draft-ietf-httpbis-cookie-prefixes, draft-thomson-http-omnomnom, draft-ietf-httpbis-cookie-same-site, draft-ietf-httpbis-cookie-alone instead of None |
2018-04-19
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-11-15
|
02 | Patrick McManus | Added to session: IETF-100: httpbis Fri-0930 |
2017-08-07
|
02 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-02.txt |
2017-08-07
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-07
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mike West |
2017-08-07
|
02 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-25
|
01 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-01.txt |
2017-04-25
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-25
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Mike West |
2017-04-25
|
01 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-13
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-03-21
|
00 | Patrick McManus | Added to session: IETF-98: httpbis Fri-0900 |
2016-11-13
|
00 | Patrick McManus | Added to session: IETF-97: httpbis Tue-1330 |
2016-10-10
|
00 | Mike West | New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-00.txt |
2016-10-10
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2016-10-10
|
00 | Mike West | Set submitter to "Mike West ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-10-10
|
00 | Mike West | Uploaded new revision |