Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100317
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain genkgo.nl designates 46.21.156.38 as permitted sender)
To: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, Lars Strojny <lars@strojny.net>,
 Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <a4189866-23ea-4dc5-12a4-a7fbad8e5601@genkgo.nl>
 <CA+kxMuToz+RZ4_t_ta7CRzBu98Ts3U5=cTV--SppGKK85STUEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVpJ0oy+afKhfhKv1trJtnOLmcWFg=DA1G-TpMxfW3jDqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ffbba599-83ee-07c1-3b68-42bcd9a90009@genkgo.nl>
 <E7AAE43A-CF2D-45E8-A176-9EAFFFEB93C1@strojny.net>
 <CAESVnVrN-M7uDzB6LqXvL8kDxaOarWKmNKdz8nGYG7v1dOQ_BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPhkiZxKj6qmHreyO+uHFFomKA9Ta5r9ypnFfEUZaQ0A+tGCJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cc7d025d-8d9c-1cb3-6c8c-75487992edc5@genkgo.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 17:34:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPhkiZxKj6qmHreyO+uHFFomKA9Ta5r9ypnFfEUZaQ0A+tGCJw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: nl-NL
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Same Site Cookie RFC
From: f.bosch@genkgo.nl (Frederik Bosch | Genkgo)

Hi Andrey,

While I agree on your statement that back-porting is suboptimal, I do 
not agree on the fact that I said that there was no time to wait. I 
submitted the RFC, awaited the opinions, changed the document according 
to the different viewpoints and I link to the other RFC from this RFC. I 
do not want to 'push' this through. I think we know the opinions, so it 
is time to vote. If both suggestions from this RFC don't make, then 
people can go for other solutions.

Best,
Frederik



On 28-08-17 17:23, Andrey Andreev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Lars Strojny <lars@strojny.net> wrote:
>>> Sounds good! Let's vote in getting it in first and then we can have a 2nd RFC (and vote) if it should land in 7.2
>>>
>> Mmmm, not quite.  IF you want to aim for 7.2, do it now in the same
>> vote.  Back porting is sub-optimal and there's not a rush to land it
>> on 7.3.  The time sensitive part is 7.2.
>>
> I second this.
>
> In fact, there was a competing idea/RFC when the discussion started,
> but the author of this one insisted that there's no time to wait for
> that. To me, it doesn't make sense to rush this (compared to
> alternative ideas) if it doesn't get into 7.2.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrey.