Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102944
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJd4=Ya67XaX3bwwQn20GUQqEvEVe8XEepRz9+of6h4t4fC_fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a4189866-23ea-4dc5-12a4-a7fbad8e5601@genkgo.nl>
 <1abd260d-ebc4-a062-3381-72485946e8bc@gmail.com> <a55b37e3-268c-f8ab-6545-6cf7a4f537f0@genkgo.nl>
 <CAJd4=Ya67XaX3bwwQn20GUQqEvEVe8XEepRz9+of6h4t4fC_fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 01:26:28 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZzSfwMd7TthF7jcWwY+JTnFyamyevnWDZZhGGF_qpEpKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=C3=A3es?= <mail@pmmaga.net>
Cc: "Frederik Bosch | Genkgo" <f.bosch@genkgo.nl>, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Same Site Cookie RFC
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es <mail@pmmaga.net> wr=
ote:
>
> With this being said, would anyone oppose an implementation where all the
> options (including lifetime) are included in the array parameter?
>

Yes.

All other "options" are actual *cookie attribute* names, as defined by
the various IETF RFCs, while "lifetime" is just a convenient name used
by PHP. It doesn't correspond to a particular attribute, but instead
the values for the Expires and Max-Age attributes are derived from it.
I believe during discussion I insisted that the parameter be called
"attributes", for this very reason.
On another note, I also wanted that pretty much any key/value pair to
be accepted instead of raising an error, for forward compatibility.

Unfortunately, neither of these 2 points I raised were addressed, but
it also looked like the author abandoned the RFC mid-vote as he agreed
that targeting 7.2 at the time wasn't a good idea, only he didn't
actually close the vote. So ... I'm not even sure of the status of
this RFC?

Cheers,
Andrey.