[http-state] [Errata Rejected] RFC6265 (4043)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 12 July 2014 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17EB1B2A69; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.853
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FWfSy9T6u_8W; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE061B2932; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 8B1D318001B; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: plepropre@gmail.com, abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20140712141501.8B1D318001B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-state/3-PEVymmyiZWodqfABC7stlwY0k
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, http-state@ietf.org
Subject: [http-state] [Errata Rejected] RFC6265 (4043)
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:15:43 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6265,
"HTTP State Management Mechanism".

You may review the report below and at:

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>;
Date Reported: 2014-07-06
Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG)

Section: 5.1.4

Original Text
The user agent MUST use an algorithm equivalent to the following
algorithm to compute the default-path of a cookie:

Corrected Text
The user agent MUST use an algorithm equivalent to the following
algorithm to compute the default value for a cookie-path 
(and thereby matching the server-side semantics as defined in

The term "default-path" is not formally defined before and is quite misleading for the reader 
  A. going through the section 5.1.4 as it's only used there once and not again
     until section 5.2.4 (once again) and 5.3 (once again).
  B. not being a native English speaker

Furthermore, the true meaning of the "default-path" only appears sometime after at section 5.2.4 where it's finally bound altogether. Therefore, my personal recommendation would be to also replace the other occurrences of the "default-path" terms by "default cookie-path"
This report is actually an enhancement request.  The discussion of this report on the http-state mailing list should be reviewed if the document is ever revised.

RFC6265 (draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-23)
Title               : HTTP State Management Mechanism
Publication Date    : April 2011
Author(s)           : A. Barth
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : HTTP State Management Mechanism
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG