IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Fri, 29 January 2010 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@adambarth.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8356F3A67DD for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:38:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.772
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GEfKTLtJNaWe for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f50.google.com (mail-pw0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED833A6966 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pwi20 with SMTP id 20so1236879pwi.29 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:38:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.63.25 with SMTP id l25mr390547wfa.164.1264754309189; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:38:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B629D8F.9010503@corry.biz>
References: <7789133a1001220050m56cc438x35099b7972639331@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001220957240.9467@tvnag.unkk.fr> <33259CFA-E50A-46D7-A315-5D68ACB69CDB@apple.com> <2C56E4FA-8BE2-479A-AA53-E64DC3A907E2@gbiv.com> <4B628D14.9080003@corry.biz> <4B629A92.9090101@gmx.de> <4B629D8F.9010503@corry.biz>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:38:09 -0800
Message-ID: <7789133a1001290038h51e98ba5q3bdd5ffefe48ff6e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:38:11 -0000

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz> wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote on 1/29/2010 12:21 AM:
>> Bil Corry wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The spec we produce may not pass IESG review anyway given we're
>>> specifying behavior that violates RFC 2109 (and presumably httpbis).
>>> The purpose of this WG is to create a spec that reflects how cookies
>>> are actually implemented in real life across common UAs and servers,
>>> including the insecure and inconsistent behavior.  Your position that
>>> 'vendors will adjust their behavior' has not borne out as RFC 2965
>>> illustrates (and the very reason for this WG).
>>> ...
>>
>> Where specifically do you expect a violation of HTTPbis, except for the
>> well-known issue about the header syntax not following the HTTP rules
>> for repeated headers?
>
> That's what I was thinking of.  It's a MUST-level rule.

There's also a minor point about parsing the Date header:

[[
Let server-date be the date obtained by parsing the contents of
the last Date header field as a cookie-date.
]]

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-02#section-5.2.2

I'm not sure whether that's a big deal though.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email